Whitfield V Saleh

Key Facts

Issues

• The court addressed whether supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) could be exercised over the state law claims (Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and the supplemental negligence claim) against individual defendants Kimberly and Darrell Long. The court concluded that these claims do not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal ADA claims asserted against Defendant Khalib Saleh. The sole factual overlap—the location of the motor vehicle accident near CaliMex Supermarket—was insufficient to establish the necessary connection between the federal and state claims. The court emphasized that the parties, harms, and factual bases for the claims are distinct, leading to the determination that supplemental jurisdiction cannot be exercised over the state law claims against the individual defendants.
• The court evaluated the futility of granting leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff sought to add Alghaity Abdullah Corp. as a defendant, arguing this would correct deficiencies in naming the lessee of CaliMex Supermarket. However, the court determined that this amendment does not address the core jurisdictional issue: the state law claims against individual defendants lack a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal ADA claims. Citing precedent (e.g., Ismail v. Cnty. of Orange), the court concluded that further amendment would be futile and that dismissing the claims without leave to amend is appropriate given the pro se plaintiff's inability to cure the pleading's fundamental flaws.

Holdings

• The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's claims against individual Defendants Kelly Long and Darrell Long (Counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and supplemental state law negligence claim) be dismissed without leave to amend, and the defendants be dismissed from the action.
• The undersigned recommends that the individual Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, requiring a complaint to state a plausible claim with sufficient factual matter. The individual Defendants' motion was granted because the complaint failed to allege facts under the ADA or state law claims against them, and the claims were deemed incurably implausible. (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly)
• The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims (Counts 4, 6, 7, and negligence) against individual Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The federal ADA claims against Defendant Shah and the state claims against individual Defendants involved distinct parties and unrelated harms with minimal evidentiary overlap (the accident location), failing the 'common nucleus of operative fact' requirement. (Bahrampour v. Lampert, Lei v. City of Lynden)

Precedent Name

• Titan Global, LLC v. Organo Gold Int'l, Inc.
• Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.
• Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't
• Apparel Art Int'l, Inc. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd.
• Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC
• Scutt v. UnitedHealth Ins. Co.
• Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido
• Brooke v. Dip Laxmi LLC
• Bahrampour v. Lampert
• Acri v. Varian Assocs.
• City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n.
• Rosati v. Igbinoso
• Ismail v. Cnty. of Orange
• Lei v. City of Lynden
• Landy v. Pettigrew Crewing, Inc.
• Wilkerson v. Wheeler

Cited Statute

• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Unruh Civil Rights Act
• ADA Accessibility Guidelines
• United States Code
• California Civil Code
• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
• California Disabled Persons Act

Judge Name

• KES
• CDB

Passage Text

• Plaintiff's proposed amendment to the operative complaint (merely adding a party) does not bear on the undersigned's conclusion that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims asserted against individual Defendants. Given the facts and circumstances of Plaintiff's claims as recounted above, the undersigned finds that further leave to amend Plaintiff's claims against individual Defendants would be futile...
• Here, even assuming the Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA claims against Defendant Shah, it does not appear these federal claims can form the 'jurisdictional anchor' for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against individual Defendants because the federal claims do not arise from the same common nucleus of operative fact as does the state law claims.