Court Opinion

ID: 9382549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 00:00:45.499892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:40.139625
License: Public Domain

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.

           _____________________
           1
             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).

                                                       2