Gilbert Salinas v. Laguna Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC

JS-6 FILED 1 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 Movs CW__pnrory [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SOUTHERN DIVISION [10] || GILBERT SALINAS, Case No.: SACV 21-00419-CJC (JDEx) Plaintiff, 13 y ORDER DECLINING ° SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 14 AND SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY 15 || LAGUNA BEACH GOLF AND SUPERIOR COURT 16 || BUNGALOW VILLAGE, LLC AND DOES 1-10, [18] Defendant. [20] 2X [22] 23 On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff Gilbert Salinas filed the instant lawsuit in Orange 24 || County Superior Court against Defendant Long Beach Golf and Bungalow Village, LLC, 25 || alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s 26 || Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1 [Complaint].) Defendant 27 || subsequently removed the case to this Court based on the federal question posed by 28 || Plaintiff's ADA claim. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) 1 On April 3, 2021, Plaintiff amended his Complaint and dropped the ADA claim, 2 || the sole federal claim, leaving only state law claims for violations of the Unruh Act and 3 || California’s Unfair Competition Law. (Dkts. 11-12.) Asa result, the Court ordered 4 || Defendant to show cause as to why the Court should not decline supplemental 5 jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remand the case. (Dkt. 16.) 6 || Defendant failed to submit its response by the April 12, 2021 deadline. (See id.) Plaintifi 7 || filed his own response requesting the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 8 || state law claims. (Dkt. 15 [hereinafter “P. Resp.”].) It appears, however, that neither 9 || Plaintiff nor his counsel read the Court’s order to show cause and, instead, filed a 10 || boilerplate response to a non-existent “request for information regarding if Plaintiff is a 11 || ‘High Frequency Litigant.’” (/d. at 6.) The Court made no such request in this case. [12] 13 Here, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why it should not remand the 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c)(3), which permits a district court to decline 15 “supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . [if] the district court has dismissed all claims 16 || over which it has original jurisdiction.” Plaintiff does not address 28 U.S.C. 17 || § 1367(c)(3), but instead argues that exceptional circumstances, under 28 U.S.C. 18 || § 1367(c)(4), do not exist. (P. Resp. at 10.) This argument is irrelevant. [19] 20 Because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which eliminated his sole federal 21 ||claim, the cause of action on which the Court’s original jurisdiction rested is now gone. 22 || See Horne v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 969 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2013). 23 ||“Under § 1367(c)(3), therefore, the [C]ourt can properly exercise its discretion to remand 24 ||the supplemental state law claims.” /d. at 1209-10. In exercising this discretion, courts 25 || are instructed to consider the factors of “judicial economy, convenience and fairness to 26 || litigants.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). These 27 || factors weigh strongly in favor of remand where all federal claims are dismissed before 28 || trial. See Horne, 969 F. Supp. 2d at 1207-08, 1210 ; see also Millar v. Bay Area Rapid 1 || Transit Dist., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (noting that “[t]he factor of 2 |}comity also weighs strongly in favor of remand” when “plaintiff now proceeds 3 |}exclusively on his state claims”); Bay Area Surgical Mgmt. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 4 WL 3235999 , *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012) (court declined to exercise supplemental 5 jurisdiction and remanded the case “in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, 6 || fairness, and comity,” when “the federal claims were eliminated at the pleading □□□□□□□□ 7 || Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and sua sponte 8 || REMANDS the case to Orange County Superior Court.! [9] 10 || DATED: April 14, 2021 Ko Lo 11 f 7 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [27] 28 ||! Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.