United States District Court, D. Arizona
Honorable Rosemary Mamjlez United States District Juage
before the Court is Defendant's Rule 12(b)(1) Partial
Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 21.) In the Motion, Defendant argues
that the negligence claim asserted in Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 11) should be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff
filed a Response (Doc. 26) in opposition to the Partial
Motion to Dismiss, and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 29).
Allegations of Plaintiff's FAC
FAC asserts a claim for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181
et seq., as well as a state-law negligence claim.
(Doc. 11 at 1, 4-6.) Plaintiff alleges that this Court has
original jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and supplemental
jurisdiction over the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367. (Doc. 11 at 1.) The factual allegations of
Plaintiff's FAC are as follows:
is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA,
and Defendant is a foreign LLC doing business in the District
of Arizona as L.A. Fitness. (Doc. 11 at 2 ¶¶ 6,
As a result of childhood polio, Plaintiff has a severely
deteriorated right side requiring use of a full right-leg
brace, and a weakened left leg. (Id. at 2 ¶ 9.)
about December 5, 2016, Plaintiff began visiting
Defendant's L.A. Fitness facility located at 240 South
Wilmot Road in Tucson, Arizona. (Id. at 2 ¶
11.) After an introductory pass, Plaintiff joined L.A.
Fitness as a member. (Id.) Defendant represented to
Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be able to access the pool and
Jacuzzi at the L.A. Fitness with electrical lifts.
(Id. at 2 ¶ 12.) However, for most of the time
from December 2016 to September 2017, the lifts were not
fully operational and usable. (Id. at 2-4
¶¶ 13, 15, 17, 24.) Plaintiff repeatedly informed
Defendant about the inaccessibility of the pool and Jacuzzi.
(Id. at 2 ¶ 14.) As a result of the lifts'
inoperability and/or inadequacies, Plaintiff was injured
multiple times. (Id. at 3-4 ¶¶ 16-22.) In
addition to the problems with the lifts, Plaintiff alleges
three additional barriers to access: the path to the pool is
often wet and slippery, the main door to the L.A. Fitness
lacks an automatic door opener, and there are too few
disabled parking spaces in close proximity to the L.A.
Fitness's entrance. (Id. at 4 ¶ 28.)
ADA claim, Plaintiff alleges that, due to barriers to access,
Defendant has discriminated against and continues to
discriminate against Plaintiff by denying him full, safe, and
equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and/or accommodations at Defendant's L.A.
Fitness. (Id. at 4-5.) In his state-law negligence
claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty
of reasonable care, that the inadequate lifts created a
dangerous condition, that Defendant knew or should have known
of the inadequate lifts, and that Plaintiff was injured as a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence.
(Id. at 5-6.)
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994). In a civil action in which a district court
has original jurisdiction, the court generally also has
“supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that
are so related to the claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). A state-law
claim is part of the same case or controversy as a federal
claim if the claims share “a common nucleus of
operative fact” and are such that a plaintiff
“would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one
judicial proceeding.” United Mine Workers of Am. v.
Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
jurisdiction “need not be exercised in every case in
which it is found to exist.” Id. at 726.
Because the justification for supplemental jurisdiction
“lies in considerations of judicial economy,
convenience and fairness to litigants . . . a federal court
should hesitate to exercise” supplemental jurisdiction
when these considerations are not present. Id. A
district court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a state-law claim if (1) the claim raises a
novel or complex issue of state law; (2) the claim
substantially predominates over the claim(s) for which the
court has original jurisdiction, (3) the court “has
dismissed all claims over for which it has original
jurisdiction, ” or (4) “in exceptional
circumstances, ” if “there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §
is no dispute that his Court has original jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's ADA claim. Defendant argues that this Court
lacks supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's
state-law negligence claim because the negligence claim does
not share a common nucleus of operative fact with the ADA
claim. (Doc. 21 at 1.) In support of this argument, Defendant
notes that the “two claims have entirely different
elements” and that proving Plaintiff's ADA claim
would not automatically prove the negligence claim. (See
Id. at 3.) However, the standard for determining whether
supplemental jurisdiction exists is not whether the federal
and state claims share precisely the same elements; the
standard is whether the claims share “a common nucleus
of operative fact” such that a plaintiff “would
ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial
proceeding.” United Mine Workers, 383 U.S. at
ADA claim and his negligence claim are both premised on
Defendant's alleged failure to provide safe, operable
lifts for accessing the pool and Jacuzzi at the L.A. Fitness
facility located at 240 South Wilmot Road. The underlying
factual allegations are substantially the same for both
claims, and a plaintiff would ordinarily expect to try both
claims in one judicial proceeding. Although the claims have
different elements, they nevertheless share a common nucleus
of operative fact. Accordingly, the Court finds that it has
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law
negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Defendant's Motion cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)
(see Doc. 21 at 2), Defendant does not argue that
any of the provisions of § 1367(c) are applicable, and
the Court finds that they are not. Considerations of judicial
economy, convenience, ...