Whitfield v. Saleh

Summary

The document contains findings and recommendations by a United States magistrate judge regarding individual defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss in an action involving alleged ADA violations and related California claims. The court recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the individual defendants because they do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the ADA claims. It further recommends dismissal of those claims without leave to amend and dismissal of the individual defendants from the action.

Holdings

1. The claims against Kimberly Long and Darrell Long do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the ADA claims concerning alleged accessibility barriers at CaliMex Supermarket; therefore, the court recommended declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
2. The proposed amendment would not cure the lack of a common nucleus of operative fact between the state-law claims against the individual defendants and the ADA claims; therefore, the court recommended dismissal without leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the state-law vehicle-accident, premises-liability, negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and emotional-distress claims against Kimberly Long and Darrell Long share a common nucleus of operative fact with Whitfield's ADA claims such that supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Whether the complaint should be dismissed against the individual defendants for failure to state a claim.
3. Whether Whitfield should be granted leave to amend to add a defendant and cure the defects in his claims against the individual defendants.

Disposition

other