Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00045/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00045-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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 08CV0045 BTM(CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUTERBRIDGE ACCESS

ASSOCIATION, SUING ON BEHALF OF

DIANE CROSS; and DIANE CROSS, An

Individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08cv0045 BTM(CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS SUPPLEMENTAL STATE

LAW CLAIMS

v.

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. d.b.a.

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS # 478;

MANNA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC.

d.b.a. PANERA BREAD # 4279; MIRA

MESA MARKETPLACE EAST, LLC and

DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Defendant Mira Mesa Marketplace East, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed a motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s supplemental state law claims. For the reasons discussed below, the

Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed this action on January 8, 2008. The Complaint asserts the following

causes of action: (1) violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§

12101, et seq.; (2) violation of the California Unruh Act (California Civil Code § 51), California

Civil Code § 52, and the Disabled Persons Act. Defendant contends that the Court should

Case 3:08-cv-00045-BTM-CAB Document 13 Filed 05/05/08 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 08CV0045 BTM(CAB)

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims because the claims

raise a novel or complex issue of state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). 

According to Defendant, Plaintiff’s state law claims raise unsettled issues of law which

should be resolved by the California courts. Specifically, in Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th

233 (2006), the California Court of Appeal held that intentional discrimination was required

to obtain damages under California Civil Code § 52(a) for access violations under the Unruh

Act. This holding is contrary to Lentini v. Calif. Center for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837 (2004),

which held that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act, regardless of

whether the plaintiff can prove intentional discrimination. 

However, the Lentini court did not have the benefit of the Gunther court’s analysis.

In any event, the ultimate issue for a federal district court in applying state law is to determine

what the highest state court would hold. Gravquick A/S v. Trimble Navigation Int’l Ltd., 323

F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir. 2003). State intermediate appellate court decisions are useful in

determining what the highest state court would hold, but they are not binding on a federal

court. Id. Whether this Court will continue to follow Lentini after Gunther is an issue that the

Court need not decide at present. 

Although Gunther and Lentini give rise to a unique conflict between Ninth Circuit and

state appellate court construction of state law, the Court must still determine whether the

exercise of its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction would comport with the

“underlying objective of ‘most sensibly accommodat[ing]’ the values of ‘economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States

District Court for the Central District of California, 24 F.3d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citations omitted). The Court recently considered the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction

in very similar circumstances in Pinnock v. Solana Beach Do It Yourself Dogwash, Inc., Case

No. 06cv1816 (Docket # 22), and concluded that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction

would best advance judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. 

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00045-BTM-CAB Document 13 Filed 05/05/08 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 08CV0045 BTM(CAB)

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the Court’s exercise of

supplemental jurisdiction creates a danger of inconsistent rulings because Plaintiff has

expressed an intention to pursue state law claims against Mira Mesa Marketplace West, LLC

and The Home Depot in state court. The instant case involves different properties and

different retail establishments; neither The Home Depot nor Mira Mesa Marketplace West,

LLC (a different limited liability company than Mira Mesa Marketplace East, LLC), are

defendants in this case. 

While the Court is aware that there is a split in opinion by the judges in the district over

whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over claims under Unruh and Cal. Civ.

Code § 52, the Court sees no reason to deviate from its decision in Solana Beach v. Do It

Yourself Dogwash, Inc. While the conflict between Lentini and Gunther may be unique, it

does not override the other reasons to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over the state

claims – to avoid duplicative litigation, with its concurrent expense, over the same nucleus

of facts in separate courts.

 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state law

claims is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00045-BTM-CAB Document 13 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 3