UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS VILLEGAS, Case No. 22-cv-00357-VC Plaintiff, y. ORDER DISMISSING CASE Re: Dkt. Nos. 19, 21, 22 HESPERIAN BOULEVARD, LLC, et al., Defendants.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). The case is in its early stages, so concerns of judicial economy, convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity do not favor retaining jurisdiction. See

. And the facts of the case—“a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to circumvent California's procedural barriers to such suits—present the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by section 1367(c)(4)” to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022).! The plaintiffs request to dismiss the ADA claim without prejudice is granted. The Clerk of Court may close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 24, 2022 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

| High-frequency litigants include attorneys who have represented “10 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs” in construction-related actions resolved within the 12-month period before filing (with certain exceptions).

(b)(2).