Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Chapman v. Subway Salads and Sandwiches #14045
October 13, 2009
BYRON CHAPMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
SUBWAY SALADS AND SANDWICHES #14045; VIRGINIA BOYD HALE AND MARY DELOUIZE, SUCCESSOR CO-TRUSTEES OF THE CLARETTA C. TRIGUERIO TRUST; AND SHIVANI AGGARWAL, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge
This matter comes before the court on all defendants' motion for summary judgment based upon the post-complaint closure of the Subway Salads and Sandwich Shop in Rio Vista, California, which was the subject of plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief pursuant to federal and state law and statutory damages pursuant to state law. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion with respect to the claims for injunctive relief. However, plaintiffs request that the court retain supplemental jurisdiction over the claims for statutory damages.
Subject to the conditions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. See Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)(en banc). The court's decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should be informed by values of "economy, convenience, fairness, and comity." Id. at 1001 (citations omitted). However, primary responsibility for developing and applying state law rests with the state courts. Therefore, when federal claims are dismissed before trial, district courts should usually decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988); Gini v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Schneider v. TRW Inc., 938 F.2d 986, 993 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Because plaintiffs' ADA claim for injunctive relief, their only federal claim, has been dismissed, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). While plaintiffs claim that their claims for damages could be resolved through a motion for summary judgment,*fn1 the dispositive motion deadline has passed, and defendants assert that they would oppose any amendment for the purpose of filing such a motion. (Scheduling Order, filed Sept. 18, 2009) (all dispositive motions must be fully briefed by October 16, 2008). Furthermore, to date, the parties have not filed any motions before the court.
Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Buy This Entire Record For