HOLDINGS: [1]-In a putative class action, plaintiff’s conversion claim failed because there was no legal basis for plaintiff’s setoff theory; [2]-Plaintiff did not assert that the specific sum at issue had been converted in a way that could be supported by California case law; [3]-The conversion claim was subject to dismissal without leave to amend because the allegation of other facts consistent with the complaint could not possibly cure the deficiency; [4]-Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment failed for substantially the same reason as his conversion claim; [5]-Since Cal. Lab. Code § 221 does not give rise to a private right of action, plaintiff’s claim under § 221 was subject to dismissal without leave to amend; [6]-The complaint failed to state a claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(c); [7]-The complaint also failed to state a claim under California’s unfair competition law. The California litigation attorney made a motion to protect the party’s interest.
Outcome
Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-In an action brought under ADA, the Unruh Act, and various state laws, where the plaintiff alleged that when he visited the defendants’ store in March 2020 the defendants did not provide properly designated parking spaces, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(4) because to allow federal courts to become an escape hatch that allowed high-frequency litigants to pursue such claims without satisfying California’s requirements was an affront to the comity between federal and state courts. Also, the filing of these cases in federal court deprived the California state courts of the ability to interpret and settle unsettled issues of state law.
Outcome
Complaint dismissed in part.
