Case: 22-50927 Document: 00516690548 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-50927 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 27, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Alejandro Hernandez, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Robert Stewart Roche, Jr., Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:20-CV-263 ______________________________ Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Alejandro Hernandez filed suit against Robert Stewart Roche, Jr., alleging that Roche violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hernandez contends he cannot wear a face mask due to medical reasons. Roche denied Hernandez access to Roche’s estate sales based on Hernandez’s refusal/inability to wear a face mask. Hernandez also asserted _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 22-50927 Document: 00516690548 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2023

No. 22-50927

a state-law claim for business disparagement against Roche. The district court granted Hernandez’s motion for default judgment as to his ADA claim.

The district court, however, denied the motion as to his business disparagement claim, determining that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over that claim. Specifically, after a thorough analysis, the district court concluded that Hernandez’s business disparagement claim lacked a “common nucleus of operative fact” 1 with his ADA claim such that supplemental jurisdiction was lacking. Having considered the briefing and relevant portions of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Hernandez’s business disparagement claim for lack of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

_____________________ See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997) (explaining that “federal courts’ original jurisdiction over federal questions carries with it jurisdiction over state law claims that ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact,’ such that ‘the relationship between [the federal] claim and the state claim permits the conclusions that the entire action before the court comprises but one [federal] case’”) (citations omitted).