1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ESCOBEDO, No. 1:25-cv-00479-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION, AND DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 NORMA ANGELICA CARRILLO dba WITHOUT PREJUDICE CARRILLO’S MEXICAN FOOD, et al., 15 Doc. 11 Defendants. 16 17 On April 25, 2025, plaintiff Jose Escobedo initiated this action against defendants Norma 18 Angelica Carrillo dba Carrillo’s Mexican Food; Eleazar Carrillo dba Carrillo’s Mexican Food; 19 Roy E. McKenney, Co-Trustee of the Roy E. and Laverne I. McKenney Family Trust, Under 20 Declaration of Living Trust Dated May 11, 1994; and Laverne I. McKenney, Co-Trustee of the 21 Roy E. and Laverne I. McKenney Family Trust, Under Declaration of Living Trust Dated May 22 11, 1994 (collectively “defendants”). Doc. 1. The complaint alleges violations of Title III of the 23 Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA claim”), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and 24 the California Health and Safety Code (both the “state claims”). See generally id. Escobedo 25 contends that several features of defendants’ property—including heavy doors, round doorknobs, 26 and high restroom product dispensers—made it difficult for him to access and use the property 27 with his disability. Id. ¶ 10. This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge 28 pursuant to

(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 1 On April 30, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered Escobedo to show cause why the Court 2 should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim in light of the 3 Ninth Circuit’s decision in Vo v. Choi,

(9th Cir. 2022) (affirming a district court’s 4 decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh Act and ADA case). Doc. 4; see 28

(c). On May 14, 2025, Escobedo filed a response. Doc. 6. 6 Considering Escobedo’s response, the magistrate judge issued findings and 7 recommendations, filed on June 3, 2025, that recommended (1) the Court decline to exercise 8 supplemental jurisdiction over Escobedo’s Unruh Act and California Health & Safety Code 9 construction-related accessibility claims; and (2) Escobedo’s Unruh Act and California Health & 10 Safety Code construction-related accessibility claims be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 11

(c)(4). Doc. 11 at 7. Specifically, the magistrate judge found that since 12 California statutes address high-frequency litigants by imposing heightened pleading standards 13 and extra filing fees, “exceptional” and “compelling” circumstances exist to warrant declining 14 supplemental jurisdiction.

;

(c)(4). Escobedo acknowledges that he is 15 considered a high-frequency litigant under California law, having filed more than ten 16 construction-related accessibility cases in this district within twelve months preceding the filing 17 of this action on April 25, 2025. Doc. 6 at 2; Doc. 6-1 ¶ 2. The magistrate judge found that 18 permitting the bypass of California’s system that addresses high-frequency litigation of 19 construction-related accessibility violations would be unfair to defendants, burden federal courts 20 with forum-shopping claims, and sidestep California’s interest in regulating state-law actions.1 21 The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections thereto were to be 22 filed within fourteen days after service. Doc. 11 at 7. Escobedo has not filed any objections and 23 the time to do so has passed. In accordance with

(b)(1), the Court conducted a de 24 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the

25 1 See Schutza v. Cuddeback,

(S.D. Cal. 2017) (relying on Hanna v. Plumer,

, 467–68 (1965), for the proposition that federal courts may decline 26 supplemental jurisdiction to discourage forum-shopping, such as ADA plaintiff’s “use [of] federal 27 court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements”); see also United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,

(1966) (discussing fairness, judicial economy, and convenience 28 as factors for discretionary decisions of supplemental jurisdiction). 1 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 2 Accordingly: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed on June 3, 2025, Doc. 11, are adopted in 4 full; 5 2. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Escobedo’s Unruh 6 Act and California Health & Safety Code construction-related accessibility claims; 7 and 8 3. Escobedo’s Unruh Act and California Health and Safety Code construction-related 9 accessibility claims are dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 10 § 1367(c)(4). 11 12 13 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. _ 14 Dated: _ June 25, 2025 4h 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28