Oscar Ramos v. Man de Yuan Enterprises, Inc., Individually and DBA The Mandarin Restaurant, et al.

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Oscar Ramos’s California disability-access and Unruh Act claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), based on exceptional circumstances and comity concerns involving California’s high-frequency litigant requirements. The recommendations would dismiss those state-law claims without prejudice, dismiss the Doe defendants, and deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without prejudice while allowing renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. The document was issued as findings and recommendations subject to objections.

Holdings

1. The court found exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's California Health and Safety Code, Disabled Person Act, and Unruh Act claims because California's special procedural requirements for high-frequency construction-related accessibility litigants would be undermined if the claims proceeded in federal court alongside the ADA claim.
2. The court recommended dismissal without prejudice of the California Health and Safety Code § 19955, Disabled Person Act, and Unruh Act claims, permitting the plaintiff to refile them in state court.
3. The court recommended dismissal of Doe Defendants 1-50 because the plaintiff did not address them in response to the order to show cause and had not served them or obtained entry of default against them.
4. The court recommended denying the motion for default judgment without prejudice, subject to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim, and granted the plaintiff thirty days to file a second motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) supported declining supplemental jurisdiction over the California disability-access claims.
2. Whether the California Health and Safety Code, Disabled Person Act, and Unruh Act claims should be dismissed without prejudice so they could be pursued in state court.
3. Whether the Doe defendants should be dismissed because they had not been served, defaulted, or addressed by the plaintiff.
4. Whether the motion for default judgment should be denied without prejudice and subject to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim.

Disposition

other