Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-03166
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Sepulveda v. Bruzzone, Judge Chen declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state claims without prejudice, leaving the ADA claim.
Richard Sepulveda’s Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and California Health and Safety Code claims were dismissed without prejudice, while his ADA claim remained. His pending motion for default judgment was denied without prejudice. The defendant’s default remained part of the case history, but the opinion did not enter default judgment.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. Russel J. Bruzzone, Inc., Richard Sepulveda alleged that a Marathon Gas facility had accessibility barriers, including a defective accessible parking space. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Health and Safety Code, the California Disabled Persons Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendant did not appear, and the clerk entered its default.
The court concluded that it could decline to hear the California claims even though they were related to the federal disability claim. It relied on the early stage of the case and the concern that keeping the state claims in federal court could allow a plaintiff to avoid California’s procedural requirements. The court said Sepulveda could still file the state claims in state court, and the merits of the claims had not yet been addressed.
Judge Edward M. Chen adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and California Health and Safety Code claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. It also denied without prejudice Sepulveda’s pending motion for default judgment; any renewed motion was due by February 21, 2025.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-03166
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 7, 2025
Background
Richard Sepulveda sued Russel J. Bruzzone, Inc., doing business as Marathon Gas. He alleged that he visited the gas station on March 18, 2024, and encountered architectural barriers that denied him access because of his disability. In particular, he alleged that the designated accessible parking space had improper dimensions and incomplete signage.
The complaint asserted four causes of action: a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a California Health and Safety Code claim, a California Disabled Persons Act claim, and a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. Sepulveda sought injunctive relief and damages. After the defendant failed to appear, the clerk entered default. Sepulveda then filed a motion for default judgment.
Report and recommendation
The magistrate judge ordered Sepulveda to explain why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside a federal claim. Sepulveda did not respond to the order to show cause or object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
The report recommended that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and California Health and Safety Code claims, dismiss those claims without prejudice, and deny without prejudice the motion for default judgment.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that the federal and state claims were part of the same case or controversy, so supplemental jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But Section 1367(c)(4) allows a court to decline that jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances when compelling reasons exist.
Applying the two-step inquiry described by the Ninth Circuit, the court found exceptional circumstances because bringing the federal disability claim together with the California claims could allow plaintiffs to bypass procedural protections and restrictions imposed by California law. The court also considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and federal-state comity. It found the case was still at an early stage and that the merits had not been addressed, making it appropriate to decline jurisdiction. The court also noted that Sepulveda could still file the state-law claims in state court.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sepulveda’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and dismissed the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and California Health and Safety Code claims without prejudice. The court also denied without prejudice the pending motion for default judgment. The order referred to the ADA claim as remaining and set February 21, 2025, as the deadline for any renewed motion for default judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.