The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, J
ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant SWH Corporation dba Mimi's Cafe #0050 ("SWH") (Doc. # 40), as well as the motions for, or notices of, joinder in SWH's Motion to Dismiss filed by seven other Defendants (Docs. # 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 56, 58). The Court finds this matter suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff Chris Kohler filed the Complaint in this matter, asserting federal Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") claims as well as California state law claims pursuant to the Disabled Person Act ("DPA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), and the California Health & Safety Code against twelve businesses located in a business mall at Westview Parkway in San Diego. (Doc. # 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he is physically disabled, and "visited [each Defendant's] facilities and encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with--if not outright denied--his ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges, and accommodations offered at these facilities." (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 28.) Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the ADA and California statutes.
SWH moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring an Unruh Act cause of action, or, alternatively, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
"[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). "A state law claim is part of the same case or controversy when it shares a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal claims . . . ." Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if:
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. §1367(c); see also Cross v. Pacific Coast Plaza Investments, L.P., No. 06 CV 2543 JM (RBB), 2007 WL 951772, *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2007). In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a court must consider the underlying objective of "most sensibly accommodating the values of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. ...