Gabriel Dorsey v. Vurgec Route 66, LLC et al

Filing 13

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the Complaint 11 . Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff's response to the Court's Order to Show Cause 12 , the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The Court therefore dismisses the state law claims without prejudice. See document for further details. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-8352-DMG (PDx)

Date

Title Gabriel Dorsey v. Vurgec Route 66, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable

January 6, 2022
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. sections 1201012213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”),
Cal. Civ. Code sections 51-53. As the Court has only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh
Act claim for construction-related disability access,1 and in light of California’s statutory efforts
to curb abuses relating to such claims, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why
the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim asserted in the
Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4).
Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,
the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In light of the
comity concerns described in the Court’s prior orders in similar cases,2 the Court determines that
there are exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under section 1367(c)(4) to refrain
from exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See Exec. Software N. Am. Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the
Cent. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1558 (9th Cir. 1994).

1

Plaintiff also asserts Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims.

2

See, e.g., Langer v. Mobeeus, Inc., No. CV 19-2680-DMG (JCx), 2020 WL 641771 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020);
Whitaker v. Montgomery, No. CV 19-9279-DMG (RAOx), 2019 WL 7877358 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019); UriarteLimon v. John Anthony Enterprises, No. CV 19-2012-DMG (SHKx), 2019 WL 8161167 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019);
see also Arroyo v. Rosas, ---F.4th---, 2021 WL 5858598, at *7 (9th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021) (affirming that the “very
substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by an Unruh Act plaintiff’s evasion of California’s limitations on
Unruh Act damages in a similar case may constitute an “exceptional circumstance” under section 1367(c)(4)).
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 21-8352-DMG (PDx)

Title Gabriel Dorsey v. Vurgec Route 66, LLC, et al.

Date

January 6, 2022
Page

2 of 2

The Court therefore dismisses the state law claims without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT