Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 24, 2022

Villegas v. Hesperian Boulevard, LLC

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:22-cv-00357
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Villegas v. Hesperian Boulevard, LLC, Judge Chhabria declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and granted dismissal without prejudice of the ADA claim.

Who this affects

Luis Villegas’s ADA claim was dismissed without prejudice, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. The order allowed the clerk to close the case.

What happened

In Villegas v. Hesperian Boulevard, LLC, the federal court considered claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, finding that the case was at an early stage and that retaining the claim would not promote efficiency, convenience, fairness, or respect for state courts. The court granted the request to dismiss the ADA claim without prejudice and allowed the clerk to close the case.

Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order on August 24, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Villegas v. Hesperian Boulevard, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-00357
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Aug. 24, 2022

Background

Luis Villegas brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act against Hesperian Boulevard, LLC, and other defendants. The order refers to the requesting party as “the plaintiffs,” although the caption identifies Luis Villegas as the plaintiff.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain state-law claims connected to a federal claim. The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and stated that the case was in its early stages, so judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, and comity did not favor keeping the state-law claim in federal court. The court also stated that the facts presented the type of exceptional circumstances supporting a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, describing the case as involving a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to avoid California procedural barriers.

Disposition

The court granted the request to dismiss the ADA claim without prejudice. It declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The clerk was permitted to close the case, and the order was signed by Judge Vince Chhabria.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.