Theresa Brooke v. Mehta N. Bharat, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01145 JLT CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIM MEHTA N. BHARAT, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants.

17 Theresa Brooke seeks to hold Mehta N. Bharat and Nita Bharat liable for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 1.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 4), the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim and dismiss the Unruh Act claim without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 6.)

23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff1 and informed her that any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 6 at 8.) The Court advised her that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-839 (9th Cir. 2014).)

27 Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired.

1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case.

2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations | are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated September 15, 2025 (Doc. 6) are 5 ADOPTED in full.

6 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim 7 arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

8 3. Plaintiffs claim for violations of the Unruh Act are DISMISSED without 9 prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: _ October 1, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE