1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 22-cv-00064-JCS

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND DISMISSING STATE CLAIM 10 TPD TOBACCO LLC,

Defendant. 11

12 On March 1, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff Brian Whitaker to show cause why the 13 Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law Unruh Civil 14 Rights Act claim for the reasons stated in Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS (N.D. Cal.),1 15 which in turn relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 16 2021). See Order to Show Cause (dkt. 16) (text-only docket entry). The portion of Whitaker’s 17 opposition brief (dkt. 18) responding to the order to show cause is copied verbatim from the 18 unsuccessful brief filed by the plaintiff in Garcia, who was represented by the same law firm. 19 Whitaker’s brief offers no reason why the Court should reach a different conclusion here. 20 Accordingly, based on the factors set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

, 726 21 (1966), and taking into account the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Arroyo, the Court finds that 22 exceptional circumstances warrant declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1367(c) for the reasons stated in Garcia. The Court hereby DISMISSES Whitaker’s Unruh Act 24 claim sua sponte, without prejudice to Whitaker pursuing that claim in state court. 25

26 1 Garcia included two relevant orders: an order to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction, Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS, ECF Doc. No. 33 (N.D. Cal. 27 Jan. 3, 2022), and an order declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the plaintiff’s ] The parties shall meet and confer to address how they would like to proceed with this case. 2 ||} No later than March 18, 2022, Whitaker shall file one of the following: (1) a status report 3 indicating that he intends to proceed in this Court on his remaining claim under the Americans 4 || with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) a stipulation to dismiss his ADA claim; or (3) a motion to 5 dismiss his ADA claim, noting the points of disagreement that prevented the parties from reaching 6 || astipulation. 7 The Court notes that it is not clear whether the issues raised in Defendant’s pending motion 8 || to dismiss (dkt. 11) can be resolved without jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing, 9 || which might or might not be appropriate at this stage of the case. The Court reserves such 10 || questions for decision, if necessary, after Defendant files its reply. The deadline for that brief is 1] CONTINUED to March 25, 2022. The hearing on that motion remains set for April 1, 2022, but 12 || may be continued if Whitaker files a contested motion to dismiss, or if the Court determines that 13 || jurisdictional discovery or an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve Defendant’s motion.” IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: March 14, 2022 16 62 J PH C. SPERO 17 ief Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ve. Pees Or consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes under 28