Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01667/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01667-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSS BOHLKE and ISC, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-1667 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DENYING PLAINTIFF BOHLKE’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS

Before the Court is defendants’ motion, filed November 9, 2007, for summary

judgment or partial summary adjudication, and plaintiff Russ Bohlke’s (“Bohlke”) motion,

filed November 9, 2007, for partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction. Having

been fully briefed, the matters came on for hearing on December 28, 2007. Timothy

Thimesch and Gene Farber appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. William McMahon and

Jennifer Perkell appeared on behalf of defendants. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, as

well as the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing,

the Court rules as follows:

1. With respect to plaintiffs’ First and Second Causes of Action, defendants’ motion

is hereby DENIED to the extent such causes of action are based on plaintiffs’ claim that

defendants’ administration of Bohlke’s eye examination violated his right to access

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMC Document 108 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

defendants’ programs, and in all other respects, defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs’ federal

claims is hereby GRANTED.

2. With respect to plaintiffs’ Third through Eighth Causes of Action, in light of the

single remaining federal claim, which is based on a limited number of facts, and entails no

complex legal issues, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over said

state law claims and finds that the factual and legal issues presented thereby “substantially

predominate over the claim . . . over which the district court has original jurisdiction.” See

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2). Accordingly, plaintiffs’ Third through Eighth Causes of Action are

hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiffs’ refiling said claims in state court, and

defendants’ motion to dismiss said claims on their merits is hereby DENIED as moot.

3. Bohlke’s motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01667-MMC Document 108 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 2