The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that certain architectural barriers in Defendants' retail establishments prevent him, a disabled individual, from enjoying full and equal access to those establishments. Plaintiff brings claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), the California Disabled Persons Act ("DPA"), and the Health and Safety Code. Pending before the court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the supplemental state claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Docket No. 22. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
A party may move the court to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When the moving party argues that the allegations are insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law, the court accepts the allegations as true. Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005). "The party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
In an action over which it has original jurisdiction, a federal court must exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all other state claims that arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545, 1556 (9th Cir. 1994). The court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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.
This court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claim. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. The court must therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims, claims which, from the face of the complaint, arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts.
Defendants contend, among other things, that Plaintiff's state claims raise novel and complex issues of California law, and therefore the claims should be dismissed pursuant to § 1367(c)(1). The court agrees for the reasons set forth in its order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a virtually identical case, Cross v. Pacific Coast Plaza Investments, L.P., 2007 WL 951772, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16138, Case No. 06-CV-2543 JM (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2007). In Cross, this court dismissed the state claims on the ground that Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 (2006), ...