Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-In action brought under ADA, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and a negligence claim, where the plaintiff alleged that the business did not provide accessible parking spaces for people with disabilities when he visited the business in June 2020, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other related state law claims because the case presented exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction since the state of California had spent significant time and resources creating a system to address a surge of similar claims in order to curtail baseless and vexatious litigation. The Los Angeles litigation attorney made a motion to protect the party’s interest.

Table of Contents

Outcome

Complaint dismissed in part.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiffs, a public benefit corporation and its paraplegic member, filed a motion for entry of a default judgment against defendants, an individual and a California corporation, in plaintiffs’ action alleging civil rights violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 54, 54.1 and 54.3, Cal. Health and Safety Code § 19955 et seq., and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

The motion was referred to a magistrate judge for report and recommendation. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the paraplegic member patronized a truck stop, which had previously been dismissed from the action the court, and that he experienced significant difficulty in parking, using the fuel pumps, and accessing the lob and restroom. Plaintiffs’ motion sought over 20 accommodations at the truck stop, damages to the paraplegic member, and attorney fees and costs to the public benefit corporation. The magistrate recommended that plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be denied because the complaint failed to establish that the individual and corporate defendants were responsible for, or had authority to make, modifications at the truck stop. Plaintiffs’ complaint admitted that plaintiffs did not know the relative responsibilities of each defendant in the operation of the facilities at issue.