The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
ORDER DECLINING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
Pending before the Court is Defendant PFS, LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims. (Doc. # 12). On May 5, 2007, Defendant Cassu Investment Group Ltd. joined the motion. (Doc. # 15).
On January 25, 2007, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter, asserting federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims as well as California state law claims pursuant to the California Civil Code and the Unruh Act, against Defendants PFS, LLC dba McDonald's (PFS) and the Cassu Investment Group, Ltd. (Doc. # 1). After the Court granted several joint motions to extend the time for PFS to answer, PFS moved to dismiss Plaintiff's state law claims on April 11, 2007. (Doc. # 12). On April 16, 2007, Defendant Cassu Investment Group Ltd. answered the Complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. (Doc. # 13). On May 5, 2007, Cassu Investment Group Ltd. joined PFS's motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 15).
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Roy Davis Gash suffers from numerous physical, neurological, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal impairments which impair his ability to walk. Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 27. At times, Plaintiff's physical impairments necessitate his use of a wheelchair. Compl., ¶¶ 12, 27.
In October of 2006, Plaintiff patronized Defendant PFS's McDonald's restaurant located at 6326 Mission Gorge Road, San Diego, CA. Compl., ¶¶ 4, 13. During the visit, Plaintiff was unable to use or had difficulty using disabled parking spaces, curb ramps, exterior paths of travel, entrances, exits, and patio dining facilities at the restaurant. Compl., ¶ 13. The access barriers which Plaintiff encountered at the restaurant denied Plaintiff full and equal access to Defendants' goods, services, facilities, and accommodations. Compl., ¶ 26. Knowledge of the restaurant's access barriers deters Plaintiff from returning to the restaurant. Compl., ¶ 19.
"[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 North America, Inc. v. ...