Rutherford v. JC Resorts, LLC et al, No. 3:2019cv00665 - Document 22 (S.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court DECLINES to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's State law Unruh Act claim and accordingly REMANDS this action to the San Diego County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/22/2020. [Certified copy sent to State Court](mme)(jrd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rutherford v. JC Resorts, LLC et al Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.446 Page 1 of 13 Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES RUTHERFORD, an individual, Plaintiff, · 12 13 V. 14 JC RESORTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 15 16 Case No.: 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 13] Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant JC Resorts, LLC's ("Defendant") Motion for 19 Sununary Judgment, filed on February 28, 2020. (Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiff James 20 Rutherford ("Plaintiff') filed his Response in opposition on March 16, 2019. (Doc. No. 21 14.) Defendant filed its Reply on March 23, 2019. (Doc. No. 16.) Having reviewed the 22 party's submissions, the Court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral 23 argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78 and Civil LR 7.l(d)(l). For the reasons set forth below, 24 the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. 25 Ill 26 Ill 27 Ill 28 Ill 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.447 Page 2 of 13 I.BACKGROUND 1 2 A. Factual Background 3 Plaintiff James Rutherford, through counsel, brings claims for violation of the 4 California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act 1 ("ADA"). (See 5 Doc. No. 1-1 6 Bernardo Inn (the "Inn") in San Diego, California. 2 Plaintiff alleges that he is a disabled 7 individual who relies on manually powered mobility devices, such as a cane, a Rollator 8 walker, or a wheelchair to ambulate at times. 3 Id. He asserts that he frequently travels 9 with his fiancé, who is quadriplegic, for both business and pleasure. 4 As a result, public ,r 14.) Plaintiffs claims stem from an alleged desire to stay at the Rancho 10 accommodation establishments that he and/or they patronize, must be equipped with 11 ADA compliant mobility accessible features. Aside from his personal necessity for 12 access to public accommodation features, Plaintiff also asserts that he is an ADA 13 compliance "tester" for the purpose of determining whether places of public 14 accommodation are in compliance with ADA guidelines. 5 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 His disabilities substantially limit his performance of"one or more major life activities, including but not limited to: walking, standing, ambulating, sitting, in addition to twisting, turning and grasping objects." (See Doc. No. 1-1 ,r 14.) 2 The Defendant owns and operates the Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego, California. 3 Plaintiff suffers from spinal stenosis aggravated by a herniated disc, arthritis in his hands and damage to his heels from a previous fracture. (Doc. No. 15 at 8.) 4 The Court notes that Plaintiffs fiancé is not a party to this action. Plaintiff has no standing to raise any claims his fiancé might; his rights are limited to the right to stay at the motel with his fiancé. His fiancé's disability is therefore relevant, but only to his own claim. See Chapman v. Pier I Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,949 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that Article III standing requirements mean an ADA plaintiff must show that "injunctive relief will vindicate the rights of the particular plaintiff rather than the rights of third parties"). 5 The standards governing compliance with the ADA are set forth in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"), with is "essentially an encyclopedia of design standards." Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903,905 (9th Cir. 2011). The ADAAG "lay[ s] out the technical structural requirements of places of public 2 l 9-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.448 Page 3 of 13 1 Plaintiff contends that on January 10, 2019, he visited the Inn's website to book a 2 room for his fiancé and himself. 6 Id. After searching the website, Plaintiff claims he was 3 unable to determine if the property was equipped with the necessary accessibility features 4 that he and his fiancé require. 7 Id. Moreover, Plaintiff asse1is the website's reservation 5 system did not allow accessible room reservations to be made in the same manner as 6 standard room reservations. 8 Id. 7 reserve a room at the Inn. Id. 8 causes of action: an ADA claim arising out of the alleged discrimination he suffered from 9 the absence of or differences in online accessibility information and room reservation ,r 10. As a result of these barriers, he was unable to ,r,r 27-37. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings two 10 requirements, and a California Umuh Civil Rights Act claim incorporating the same facts 11 and pleadings as the ADA claim. Plaintiff seeks: (1) injunctive relief, compelling 12 Defendant to comply with the ADA and Unruh Act; (2) damages (nominal and statutory), 13 (3) attorney's fees and costs, and (4) post-judgment interest. Defendant moves this Court 14 for an Order granting its Motion for Summary Judgment on both of Plaintiffs claims. 15 (Doc. No. 13 at 3.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 accommodation." Fortune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2004). 6 Plaintiff alleged that he attempted to use Defendant's Website to book an accessible room at Defendant's hotel, find information about accessible features about an accessible room and the hotel, but was deterred from using the website and visiting Defendant's physical locations due to the lack of accessibility of Defendant's online reservations system. (Doc. No. 14 at 4.) 7 Barriers that directly affect Plaintiff at a hotel include a lack of accessible routes to and from entrances, accessible routes inside facilities, accessible parking, accessible bathing facilities, handrails and support, accessible pools, accessible elevators, wide enough doorways, and accessible service counters. In addition to being dangerous for him because of the danger of falling, these types of barriers also affect his ability to use either a cane, rollator, or wheelchair to gain access. (Doc. No. 14 at 8.) 8 "[T]he website and online reservation system prevented me [sic] make a reservation for a room designated as 'accessible' (regardless of inadequate descriptions of how a room is accessible) because it required an extra step to make a 'special request' before I could make a reservation." (Doc. No. 14-1 ,r 11.) 3 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.449 Page 4 of 13 1 B. Procedural Background 2 This case was brought on February 27, 2019, by Plaintiff in the San Diego 3 Superior Court.9 (See Doc. No. 1-1.) The Complaint was removed to this Court on April 4 9, 2019. (See Doc. No. 1.) Defendant filed its Answer on April 10, 2019. (Doc. No. 2.) 5 On February 28, 2020, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed 6 his Response on March 16, 2019, and Defendant filed its Reply on March 23, 2019. (See 7 Doc. Nos. 14, 16.) 8 II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact 10 and, viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is 11 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 12 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Summary judgment may also be entered "against a party who 13 fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 14 party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322. A 15 fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute is genuine if a 16 reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party based on the competing evidence. 17 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,248 (1986). Conclusory or speculative 18 testimony in affidavits is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary 19 judgment. Thornhill Publ'g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). 20 Moreover, though a court may not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility 21 determinations, there must be more than a mere scintilla of contradictory evidence to 22 survive summary judgment. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 23 2000). 24 Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply rest 25 on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or "metaphysical doubt" about a material 26 27 9 28 San Diego Superior Court Complaint, Case Number 37-2019-0001-939-CU-CR- CTL. 4 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.450 Page 5 of 13 1 issue of fact precludes summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23; Matsushita 2 Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Cal. Architectural 3 Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir. 1987). 4 Nor will uncorroborated allegations and "self-serving testimony" create a genuine issue 5 of material fact. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 6 2002). Thus, "what suffices at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage may not suffice at the later stages 7 of the proceedings when the facts are tested." Syed v. M-I, 853 F.3d 492, n.4 (9th Cir. 8 2017). Thus, a court should grant summary judgment against a party who fails to 9 demonstrate facts sufficient to establish an element essential to his case when that party 10 will ultimately bear the burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. This Court 11 is at that later stage now. 12 13 III. DISCUSSION As a threshold matter, Defendant has challenged Plaintiffs standing to sue. 14 Specifically, Defendant argues the entire ADA claim fails as a matter of law because 15 Plaintiffs Complaint does not sufficiently allege that he was "deterred from" or "would 16 ever visit the Inn in the future." (Doc. No. 13 at 3.) Next, Plaintiff failed to plead 17 sufficient facts to state a claim under the ADA. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff is not entitled to 18 statutory damages because he cannot show he was denied access to the Inn or that 19 Defendant intentionally discriminated against him. Finally, Defendant asserts that the 20 Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 21 id. at 3. The Court addresses the threshold issue of standing first. 22 A. Article III Standing 23 "[A]s with other civil rights statutes, to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts, 24 a disabled individual claiming discrimination must satisfy the case or controversy 25 requirement of Article III by demonstrating his standing to sue at each stage of the 26 litigation." Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (US.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) 27 (citations omitted). "In addition, to establish standing to pursue injunctive relief, which is 28 the only relief available to private plaintiffs under the ADA, [a plaintiff] must 5 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.451 Page 6 of 13 1 demonstrate a 'real and immediate threat of repeated injury' in the future." Id. (citing 2 Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004)). 3 4 To have standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). First, the plaintiff"must have suffered an injury 5 in fact-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and 6 particularized and (b) 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."' Id. at 560 7 ( citations omitted). Second, "there must be a causal connection between the injury and 8 the conduct complained of-.the injury has to be 'fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged 9 action of the defendant and not ... th[ e] result [of] the independent action of some third 10 party not before the court."' Id. (citations omitted). Third, "it must be 'likely,' as 11 opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be redressed by a favorable 12 decision."' Id. at 561 (citation omitted). The burden falls on the plaintiff to show that it 13 has met all three requirements. Id. 14 Federal courts "to take a broad view of constitutional standing in civil rights cases, 15 especially where, as under the ADA, private enforcement suits are the primary method of 16 obtaining compliance with the Act." Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 17 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); see also Trafjicante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 18 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972); 42 U.S.C. 12188(a) (providing private right of action for 19 injunctive relief against public accommodations that violate the ADA). Accordingly, 20 "[ o]nee a disabled individual has encountered or become aware of alleged ADA 21 violations that deter his patronage of or otherwise interfere with his access to a place of 22 public accommodation, he has already suffered an injury in fact traceable to the 23 defendant's conduct and capable of being redressed by the courts, and so he possesses 24 standing under Article III .... " Doran, 524 F.3d at 1042 n.5. 25 1. Website 26 (a) Actual or Imminent Injury 27 In the context of ADA discrimination claims, the Ninth Circuit recognizes a 28 deterrent effect doctrine. See, e.g., Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th 6 l 9-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.452 Page 7 of 13 1 Cir. 2008); A disabled individual has suffered an actual injury ifhe is "currently deterred 2 from patronizing a public accommodation due to a defendant's failure to comply with the 3 ADA .... " Id. at 1040. In this case, Plaintiff's "knowledge" that the Inn is not ADA or 4 state law compliant comes entirely from his review of Defendant's website. Evidence of 5 the plaintiff's "actual lmowledge" of a barrier is sufficient to demonstrate an actual 6 injury. Moreover, "[w]here an individual lmows of ADA violations at a public 7 accommodation, he is not required to keep returning in order to show imminent injury." 8 Gastelum v. Canyon Hospitality LLC, No. 17-CV-2792-PHX-GMS, 2018 WL 2388047, 9 · at *6 (D. Ariz. May 25, 2018). Instead, the ongoing deterrence is sufficient to satisfy the 10 requirement ofan actual and imminent injury. Doran, 524 F.3d at 1040. Here, it is 11 undisputed that Plaintiff gained actual lmowledge of the alleged barriers. 12 Defendant argues, however, that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate an actual injury 13 because his sole motivation for acquiring that lmowledge was to initiate a lawsuit. (Doc. 14 No. 13.) This argument, however, is inconsistent with prevailing Ninth Circuit law, 15 which maintains that "motivation is irrelevant to the question of standing under Title III 16 of the ADA." See Civil Rights Educ. And Enforcement Ctr. v. Hospitality Props. Tr., 867 17 F.3d 1093, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2017) (hereinafter "CREEC'); Gastelum, 2018 WL 18 2388047, at *6 ("This so-called 'tester standing' rule means that a plaintiff can visit or 19 otherwise obtain information about a public accommodation solely for the purpose of 20 ensuring ADA compliance and with the intent to bring a lawsuit if deficiencies are 21 found."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's lmowledge of alleged barriers is sufficient evidence of 22 an actual and imminent injury. 23 (b) Concrete and Particularized Harm 24 A plaintiff may show a concrete and particularized injury by "stating that he is 25 currently deterred from attempting to gain access" to the public accommodation due to a 26 barrier. Doran, 524 F.3d at 1040. A barrier in a public accommodation must "interfere 27 with the plaintiff's full and equal enjoyment of the facility." Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports 28 (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,947 (9th Cir. 2011). A barrier, however, "only amounts to such 7 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.453 Page 8 of 13 1 interference if it affects the plaintiffs full and equal enjoyment of the facility on account 2 of his particular disability." Id. A "bare procedural violation" unassociated with a 3 plaintiffs particular disability "cannot satisfy the demands of Article III" standing. 4 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1550 (2016). 5 For example, in Chapman, the plaintiff alleged "that he is 'physically disabled,' 6 and that he 'visited the Store' and 'encountered architectural barriers that denied him full 7 and equal access."' Chapman, 631 F .3d at 954. The plaintiff, however, "simply 8 identifie[d] alleged ADA ... violations without connecting the alleged violations to [his] 9 disability or indicating whether or not he encountered any one of them in such a way as 10 to impair his full and equal enjoyment of the Store." Id. As a result, the Ninth Circuit 11 found these allegations insufficient to establish a concrete and particularized harm for 12 purposes of the injury-in-fact requirement. 13 Likewise, Plaintiff's failure to connect the alleged ADA violations from the 14 website and reservation system to his specific disability is fatal to his ability to show a 15 concrete and particularized harm. More importantly, since this is a motion for summary 16 judgment, Plaintiff must present evidence of harm to support his claim of Article III 17 standing. 10 Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Inn's website violates 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e)(l), 18 requiring facilities to "identify and describe accessible features ... in enough detail to 19 reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given 20 hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs." (Doc. No. 1-2 'il'il 22-32.) In 21 this case, he did not state what accessibility feature(s) were missing, or explain how it 22 prevented him from reserving a room utilizing the website reservation system. Later, 23 when Plaintiff attempts to rectify this shortcoming in his reply, he only generally 24 25 26 27 28 10 "Of course, standing 'must be supported at each stage of the litigation in the same manner as any other essential element of the case,' and what suffices at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage may not suffice at later stages of the proceedings when the facts are tested." Syed v. M-I, 853 F.3d 492, n.4 (9th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). 8 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.454 Page 9 of 13 1 describes various barriers that affect him when he stays at hotels, such as lack of 2 accessible routes to and from entrances, accessible routes inside facilities, accessible 3 parking, accessible bathing facilities, handrails and support, accessible pools, accessible 4 elevators, wide enough doorways, and accessible service counters. (Doc. No. 14 at 8.) 5 Once again, Plaintiff"does not even attempt to relate the alleged violations to his 6 disability." Chapman, 631 F.3d at 955. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot maintain standing 7 to bring the lawsuit on this bare procedural allegation. 8 (c) Injunctive Relief 9 A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must also show that there is a "real and 10 immediate threat of repeated injury." Lyons, 461 U.S. at ll 1. In ADA cases, a plaintiff 11 may show a real and immediate threat of injury in two ways: (1) "he intends to return to a 12 · noncompliant accommodation and is therefore likely to reencounter a discriminatory 13 architectural barrier;" or (2) the "discriminatory architectural barriers deter him from 14 returning to a noncompliant accommodation" which he would otherwise visit in the 15 course of his regular activities. Chapman, 631 F.3d at 950. In recognizing the deterrent 16 effect and tester standing doctrines, "the Ninth Circuit did not relax the requirement that 17 the Plaintiff demonstrate real and immediate threat of repeated injury by showing a 18 legitimate intent to visit again the public accommodation in question." Gastelum, 2018 19 WL 2388047, at *6. Demonstrating "past exposure to illegal conduct" alone is not 20 sufficient to demonstrate a present case or controversy; instead, "the plaintiff must allege 21 continuing, present adverse effects stemming from the defendant's action." CREEC, 867 22 F.3d at 1098. For instance, a plaintiff may show continuing adverse effects by showing 23 that a "defendant's failure to comply with the ADA deters [him] from making use of the 24 defendant's facility." Id. But, to be deterred from making use of the defendant's facility, 25 one must have a true desire to return to the facility but for the barriers. See, e.g., D'Lil v. 26 Best Western Encino Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2008). 27 28 In determining whether a plaintiff has a future intent to visit the public accommodation at issue, courts consider a series of factors, including: "(1) the proximity 9 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.455 Page 10 of 13 1 of the place of public accommodation to plaintiffs residence, (2) plaintiffs past 2 patronage of defendant's business, (3) the definitiveness of plaintiffs plans to return, and 3 (4) the plaintiffs frequency of travel near defendant." Harris v. Del Taco, Inc., 396 F. 4 Supp. 2d 1107, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Courts are to make a case-by-case determination, 5 in light of all the evidence. See CREEC, 867 F .3d at 1100. · 6 Defendant argues that "Plaintiff fails to demonstrate, concrete plans to stay at the 7 [Defendant's Inn] in the future .... " (See generally Doc. Nos. 13 and 15.) The Court 8 agrees. Plaintiff has never stayed at the Inn. In fact, he has only visited the Defendant's 9 website. Although Plaintiff likes to travel to San Diego for pleasure, and other times for 10 litigation purposes and hearings, there is insufficient evidence that he actually stays in 11 hotels of the same caliber as Defendant's property for any of those purposes. (Doc. No. 12 14-1 13 overnight given its reputation as a luxurious and comfortable hotel, he fails to articulate 14 any specific plan to return or explain why he is likely to want to stay at or visit 15 Defendant's hotel in the future with any specific detail. Id. Plaintiffs suggestion that he 16 would like to "visit" and "stay overnight" is anything but specific about that time. 11 17 (Doc. No. 14 at 11.) Absent a showing of specific plans or that he likely would visit 18 Defendant's Inn, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a real and immediate threat of repeated 19 injury. See Gastelum, 2018 WL 2388047 at *7. Accordingly, Plaintiff does not have 20 standing to pursue this ADA claim. 21 /// ,r,r 16-20.) And, although Plaintiff avows that he wants to visit "Defendant's Hotel" 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 "Plaintiff would like to return to the Website and visit Defendant's Hotel overnight given its reputation as a luxurious and comfortable hotel. He plans to stay overnight at the Hotel with his fiancé and they will be driving the wheelchair accessible van she requires to travel via automobile (she uses a power wheelchair that deploys via ramp from her van). Plaintiff also plans to use his Rollator walker to ambulate when he visits the Hotel, since he has been using it more frequently recently due to worsening stenosis symptoms and corresponding difficulty in mobility." (Doc. No. 14 at 11.) 10 l 9-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.456 Page 11 of 13 1 2. Reservation System 2 Plaintiffs also alleges that Defendant's website reservation system reserves 3 accessible rooms differently than non-accessible rooms. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges 4 that "[t]he ... online reservation system prevented me [sic] mak[ing] a reservation for a 5 room designated as 'accessible' (regardless of inadequate descriptions of how a room is 6 accessible) because it required an extra step to make a 'special request' before I could 7 make a reservation." 12 (Doc. No. 1-2 21(±).) However, he provides little explanation of 8 this purported difference other than asserting that the reservation system requires a 9 special request be submitted. As with his other website-related claim, Plaintiffs vague 10 assertion is insufficient. Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks standing over Plaintiffs 11 second ADA allegation as well. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment as 12 to Plaintiffs ADA claim. 13 B. State Law Claim - Unruh Act 14 .Defendant also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs damages claim under 15. the Unruh Act. (Doc. No. 16 at 8.) Because the Court grants summary judgment on 16 Plaintiffs ADA claim, the only remaining issue is whether the Court may exercise 17 supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim. 18 The Court has supplemental jurisdiction "over all other claims that are so related to 19 claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case 20 or controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The ADA and state law claims share a common 21 nucleus of operative fact and are "part of the same case or controversy"; both use 22 identical factual allegations and violations of the _ADA to constitute violations of the 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 When attempting to make a reservation, Plaintiff found that the Website treated the accessible rooms as a special request and not as a room type that can be reserved as can other rooms with the following special request options: "Handicapped Accessible Room" and "Handicapped Accessible Room w/ Rollin Shower"; however, the information provided lacks specificity and does not provide sufficient detail for Plaintiff to determine whether the Subject Property will meet his accessibility needs. 11 l 9-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.457 Page 12 of 13 1 parallel Unruh Act. Nevertheless, once the Court acquires supplemental jurisdiction, it 2 may decline to exercise it if: 3 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; 4 (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the 5 district court has original jurisdiction; 6 (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction; 7 or 8 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining 9 jurisdiction. 10 11 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The decision to retain jurisdiction over state law claims is within the district court's 12 discretion, weighing factors such as economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Brady 13 v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810,816 (9th Cir. 1995). 14 Here, the Court granted summary judgment on the ADA claim, the only claim over 15 which it has original jurisdiction. "[I]n the usual case in which federal-law claims are 16 eliminated before trial, the balance of factors ... will point toward declining to exercise 17 jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 18 19 U.S. 343,350 n.7 (1988). Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law 20 Unruh Act claim, as it has "dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction." 21 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(l); see, e.g., Oliver, 654 F.3d at 910 (finding that the district court 22 did not abuse its discretion in dismissing state law claims under the UCRA and CDP A 23 after losing original jurisdiction over ADA claim); see also Rodgers v. Chevys 24 Restaurants, LLC, No. C13-03923 HRL, 2015 WL 909763, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 25 2015) ("In a Title III ADA action, a district court may properly decline supplemental 26 jurisdiction over related state"law access claims once the ADA claim has been 27 dismissed."). Since the Court is declining supplemental jurisdiction, we are required to 28 REMAND the Unruh Act claim back to the Superior Court. 12 19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Case 3:19-cv-00665-BEN-NLS Document 22 Filed 07/23/20 PageID.458 Page 13 of 13 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for 3 Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's federal ADA claim. The Court DECLINES to 4 retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's State law Unruh Act claim and 5 accordingly REMANDS this action to the San Diego County Superior Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: J u l y ~ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 l 9-cv-00665-BEN-NLS
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
