Cuevas v. Martinez

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Cuevas v. Martinez

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA CUEVAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01595 JLT CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 LOUIS E. MARTINEZ d/b/a MERIDAN GENERAL STORE, et al., (Doc. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Joshua Cuevas seeks to hold Louis E. Martinez, doing business as Meridan General Store, 18 liable for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, Plaintiff 19 asserts several claims arising under state law, including: California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, 20 Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence. (Doc. 1.) Following an order to 21 show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 5), the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and 22 Recommendations, recommending the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 23 Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss the claims without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 24

1367(c)(4). (Doc. 7.) 25 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff1 and informed him that 26 any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 7 at 9.) The Court 27 advised him that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 1 | rights on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

772 F.3d 834, 838-839

(9th Cir. 2014).) 2 | Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired. 3 According to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 4 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 5 || are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 15, 2025 (Doc. 7) are 7 ADOPTED in full. 8 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 9 claims arising under state law pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367

(c)(4). 10 3, Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Cal. 11 Health & Safety Code, and negligence are DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: _ January 31, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown