Escobedo

Escobedo v. Papazian

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 21, 20241:24-cv-00636California2,324 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

17 On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff Jose Escobedo (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint against Defendants Gilda A. Papazian also known as Trustee of the Gilda A. Papazian Revocable Trust under Trust Agreement dated January 14, 2010; Kimberly R. Stillmaker also known as Trustee of the Kimberly R. Hudson Revocable Trust under Trust Agreement dated January 14, 2010; and SA & SM LLC doing business as Mariscos El Diamante (“Defendants”), alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and California’s Health and Safety Code. (Doc. 1). These claims stem from alleged barriers Plaintiff encountered (such as excessive height changes in paths of travel and inaccessible tables) while he visited “Mariscos El Diamante,” a facility allegedly owned, operated, or leased by Defendants. (See id.) On November 6, 2024, the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims considering the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Vo v. Choi. (See Doc. 28); Vo v. Choi, 49…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.