United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
STATE LAW CLAIM [DOC. NO. 4.]
MARILYN L. HUFF, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
On
September 18, 2019, Plaintiff Vern Robert Theroux, Jr.
commenced this civil action against Defendant Mar-Con
Products, Inc. and Does 1-10 (“Defendants”)
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (“ADA”),
and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act §§
51-53 (“Unruh Act”). Defendant Mar-Con now moves
to dismiss the state law claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.[1] Plaintiff has not
opposed. Pursuant to its discretion under Local Rule
7.1(d)(1), the Court determines that the motion is fit for
resolution without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court
submits the motion on the parties' papers and vacates the
scheduled hearing. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's state law claim.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Theroux relies upon mobility devices to ambulate and suffers
from a “qualified disability” under the ADA.
(Doc. No. 1 ¶ 8.) Defendant Mar-Con Products
(“Mar-Con”), is a California corporation with its
principal place of business at 1615 La Mirada Drive, San
Marcos, CA 92078. (Id. ¶11)
In
September 2019, Plaintiff went to Mar-Con with the intention
of availing himself of its retail services. (Id.
¶ 19.) Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to access or
use the property because of various access barriers,
including barriers in at the transaction counter and in the
parking lot. (Id. ¶21-26.) Plaintiff contends
that he personally encountered said problems, and
consequently, was denied full and equal access of the
property. (Id. ¶ 28.)
On
September 18, 2019, Plaintiff sued Defendants for violations
of the ADA and the Unruh Act. Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages under the Unruh Act, injunctive relief under the ADA,
and attorneys fees. (Id. ¶ 34-48.)
On
November 13, 2019, Defendant Mar-Con filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c). Defendant primarily contend that: (1) the
state law claim substantially predominates over the federal
law claim because Plaintiff is seeking statutory damages only
available under California law and (2) Plaintiff is engaging
in forum shopping. (Doc. No. 4.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
federal supplemental jurisdiction statute provides:
[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). Supplemental jurisdiction is
mandatory unless prohibited by § 1367(b), or unless one
of the exceptions in § 1367(c) applies. Under §
1367(c), a district court may decline 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 ...