Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03032/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03032-1/pdf.json

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

1 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction for all

proceedings, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK CONNALLY, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

BAYPORT MARINA PLAZA LLC,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-3032 BZ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the second,

third and fourth causes of action (state claims) is DENIED1

for the following reasons:

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate where the

state claims and the federal claim are derived from a common

nucleus of operative fact such that a plaintiff would

ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding. 

See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725

Case 3:07-cv-03032-BZ Document 16 Filed 10/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

(1966). According to the complaint, the state and federal

claims are all derived from the fact that Connally visited

defendants property and found his access impaired by

architectural barriers. Conspicuously absent from defendant’s

motion is any assertion that the property does not have

architectural barriers.

2. While the courts have not reached a uniform position

on some of the damage issues that may be presented by the

state claims, that is not a sufficient ground for dismissing

the claims at this early stage. In many of the cases on which

defendant relies, the court decided to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction. The state claims were dismissed at or after a

pretrial conference. Here, at the pleading stage, it is too

early to know whether the factors which have led to the lack

of uniformity will be present in this case. 

3. At the pleading stage, it is too early to tell

whether the damage issues will predominate over the injunctive

relief issues. This court has presided over many cases in

which the cost of remediation greatly exceeded plaintiff’s

damages. As plaintiff correctly notes, this court has adopted

a process for streamlining the resolution of ADA access suits

so that violations of the ADA can be remediated expeditiously

while minimizing any applicable attorneys fees and damages. 

See General Order No. 56. 

4. Many of the cases on which defendant relies involve

Jarek Molski as plaintiff. As defendant correctly points

out, Mr. Molski has been declared a vexatious litigant in the

Central District. Defendant, however, makes no showing that

Case 3:07-cv-03032-BZ Document 16 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Mr. Connally is a vexatious litigant. This court’s docket

discloses only three other ADA access cases which Mr.

Connally has filed. At this stage of the litigation, there

is no basis for concluding that any of the sorts of problems

which Mr. Molski has presented will be present in this case.

I see no need for further argument and therefore VACATE

the October 31, 2007 hearing. For the reasons discussed,

defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Dated: October 2, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Connally et al v. Bayport

Marina\CONNALLY.DENY.MOT.DISMISS.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-03032-BZ Document 16 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3