Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02302/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02302-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

- 1 - 07CV2302

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.J. OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV2302

ORDER:

1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DECLINE

SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION; [Doc. No. 3]

2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE; [Doc. No. 9] and

3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

STATE LAW CLAIMS.

 vs.

LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA,

INC. dba LONGS DRUG STORE #055;

LONGS DRUG STORE, INC.,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant Longs Drug Store California, Inc.’s motion to decline

supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims. (Doc. No. 3.) Defendant has also

filed a request for judicial notice in support of the motion. (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff has filed an

opposition (Doc. No. 16) and defendant has filed a reply (Doc. No. 17). The Court took the matter

under submission by order of February 12, 2008 (Doc. No. 18). For the reasons set forth herein,

defendant’s motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff A.J. Oliver suffered a stroke approximately thirteen years ago which left him

paralyzed, speech impaired, and unable to stand or walk. (Complaint ¶ 8.) He is required to use a

Case 3:07-cv-02302-IEG-BLM Document 19 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07CV2302

motorized wheelchair. (Id.) Plaintiff’s claims arise from his visit to the Longs Drug Store

(“Store”) in Chula Vista, California. Plaintiff alleges defendant denied him full and equal access

to the Store by failing to remove numerous barriers in violation of Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title 24 regulations. (Complaint ¶¶ 10-14.) Plaintiff alleges

defendant has intentionally maintained the Store in its current non-compliant condition, and has

intentionally refrained from altering the Store so that it complies with the accessibility standards. 

(Id. ¶¶ 14-15.) 

Plaintiff states four claims for relief under Title III of the ADA, the California Disabled

Persons Act (Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 & 54.1), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil

Code §§ 51-52), and California Health and Safety Code § 19953 et. seq. Plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief, declaratory relief, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. 

Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims. Defendant argues plaintiff’s claim

under the Unruh Act presents novel and complex issues of state law such that the Court should

decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

“It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Owen

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374 (1978). Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may challenge the court’s subject matter jurisdiction “on

the basis that supplemental jurisdiction . . . is improper” according to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Sparrow

v. Mazda Am. Credit, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1066 (E.D. Cal. 2005). In facial challenges to

jurisdiction, such as the challenge made by defendant, the court’s inquiry is confined to the

allegations in the complaint. White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). Once a party

challenges subject matter jurisdiction, the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing that

jurisdiction exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). 

Analysis

Section 1367(a) of Title 28 grants federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over state law

claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form

Case 3:07-cv-02302-IEG-BLM Document 19 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 - 07CV2302

part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a); United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). To form part

of the same “case or controversy,” the state law claims must “derive from a common nucleus of

operative fact[s] . . . such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one

judicial proceeding.” Id. Here, the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

state law claims because those claims derive from the same “common nucleus of operative fact” as

plaintiff’s federal ADA claim. 

However, in certain circumstances a district court can decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction under Section 1367. Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d 1163, 1174 (9th Cir.

2002). The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim

if: 1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; 2) the state claim substantially

predominates over the federal claims; 3) the district court has dismissed all federal claims; or 4)

some other exceptional and compelling reason exists to decline jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c);

see, e.g., Sparrow, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 1070-71. In deciding whether to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction, the court should consider the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and

comity. City of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997); Smith v.

Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 2001). Defendant argues the Court should decline to

exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims in this case because those claims raise novel

or complex issues. Defendant points to the recent dissension between the state and federal courts

on the interpretation of California disability access statues, and argues the state court is the

appropriate venue to resolve this dispute. 

Under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must establish discriminatory intent to obtain

injunctive relief. Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2004). Pursuant

to Section 51(f) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a violation of the ADA also qualifies as

a violation of the Unruh Act. As a result, the Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff does not also

need to prove discriminatory intent to obtain damages under the Unruh Act. Lentini, 370 F.3d at

847. California courts, however, have held the Unruh Act does require proof of intentional

discrimination before a plaintiff cannot recover damages. See Harris v. Capital Growth Investors

Case 3:07-cv-02302-IEG-BLM Document 19 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 07CV2302

XIV, 42 Cal. 3d 1142, 1175 (1991); see generally Wilson, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (S.D. Cal. 2007)

(discussing the history of the Unruh Act and the interpretation of the California courts). In fact,

the California Court of Appeal in Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223, 252-57 (2006) expressly

rejected the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lentini and held that it improperly interpreted California

law so as to allow recovery of damages under Section 52 of the California Code of Civil Procedure

without proof of intentional discrimination.

The Court previously faced this conundrum in another case brought by plaintiff. Oliver v.

GMRI, INC., No. 07cv1719 IEG, 2007 WL 4144995 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2007). The Court is

obligated to follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lentini, which allows plaintiffs to recover

monetary damages under the Unruh Act without proving discriminatory intent. Wilson v. Haria &

Gogri Corp., 479 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1135-41 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (finding Lentini controlling and

declining to follow Gunther). However, Gunther plainly holds that a plaintiff seeking damages

under Section 52 of the California Code of Civil Procedure must show intentional discrimination. 

Faced with this conflicting authority, this Court, and others in the Southern District, have

concluded it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction. See, e.g., Oliver, 2007 WL

4144995; Wilson v. PFS, LLC, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (S.D. Cal. 2007); but see Pinnock v. Solana

Beach Do It Yourself Dog Wash, Inc., 2007 WL 1989635 (S.D. Cal. July 3, 2007) (finding

Gunther decision does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law). 

Plaintiff argues the Court should nevertheless exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law

claims not arising under the Unruh Act, specifically, the claims under the California Disabled

Persons Act and the California Health and Safety Code. This Court has previously declined to

exercise jurisdiction over these claims, finding they were “intertwined” with the Unruh Act claim. 

Oliver, 2007 WL 4144995 at *3. Plaintiff has not shown its other state law claims are in fact

independent of the Unruh Act claim. Cf. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 378. As defendant notes in reply,

plaintiff may only recover damages under one of the state statutes, but not all. (Reply at 4.) 

Accordingly, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh in favor

of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of plaintiff’s state law claims. Cf. City

of Chicago, 522 U.S. at 173. 

Case 3:07-cv-02302-IEG-BLM Document 19 Filed 02/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 07CV2302

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant has also filed a request for judicial notice in support of its motion. (Doc. No. 9.) 

The Court finds the requested judicial notice unnecessary and therefore denies the request. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s state law claims and DENIES defendant’s request for judicial notice. Plaintiff’s state

law claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to being filed in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-02302-IEG-BLM Document 19 Filed 02/25/08 Page 5 of 5