Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC

Background

Richard Sepulveda filed claims against Taqueria y Carnicería Martinez, LLC, Jiron Zhang, and Xin Li Feng under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Health and Safety Code, the California Disabled Persons Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he encountered accessibility barriers while visiting the taqueria, including a lack of accessible parking and an accessible restroom. The opinion states that the business was owned and operated by Taqueria y Carnicería Martinez, LLC and leased on property owned by Zhang and Feng.

The defendants did not appear, and the court entered default. Sepulveda then filed a motion seeking a default judgment against all defendants.

Supplemental jurisdiction issue

The court focused on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case as federal claims—over Sepulveda’s California claims. The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions explaining that courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction based on factors including the nature of the state claims, the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.

The court noted that California has imposed heightened pleading and filing requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, including claims under the Unruh Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act. It also found from Sepulveda’s prior cases in the district that he had filed at least 10 complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations during the 12 months before filing this case.

Order

The court vacated the August 22, 2023 hearing on the motion for default judgment. It ordered Sepulveda to show cause in writing, within 14 days after service of the order, why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. The order states that an inadequate response may result in the undersigned recommending that supplemental jurisdiction be declined and that the state claims be dismissed without prejudice.

This order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment, and it did not dismiss the state claims. Judge Illston issued a procedural order requiring a response before any possible recommendation concerning supplemental jurisdiction.