Marquise Bailey v. Rubios Restaurants, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARQUISE BAILEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00817-SB-PVC
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RUBIOS RESTAURANT, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Marquise Bailey, who requires the use of a wheelchair at all times when traveling in public, filed this suit alleging that Defendants Rubios Restaurant, Inc.’s and HJM Sunrise Plaza, LLC’s facility imposes barriers that impede Plaintiff’s access, in violation of, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Dkt. No. 1.
Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 367(a). However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This discretion is codified in Section 1367(c):