Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Theresa Brooke to show cause why her California Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The Court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning federal-state comity and California's reforms addressing high-frequency litigants in ADA-based Unruh Act cases, and required Plaintiff to disclose damages and supporting facts within 14 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) because exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas may apply to ADA-based Unruh Act claims.
- Whether Plaintiff should be required to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Holdings
- Because Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is closely related to her ADA claim, the court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- Under Arroyo v. Rosas, the effect of California's statutory reforms concerning high-frequency litigants and the resulting federal-state comity concerns may constitute exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), potentially justifying declining supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim.
Key quotations
“retention of supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims threatens to substantially thwart California’s carefully crafted reforms in this area and to deprive the state courts of their critical role in effectuating the policies underlying those reforms.” (19 F.4th at 1213)
“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice her Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4).”
Factual background
Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that Shante Enterprises Inc. failed to provide adequate parking facilities. The complaint asserted claims under the ADA and the California Unruh Act. Because the Unruh Act claim was closely related to the ADA claim, the court concluded that supplemental jurisdiction existed, but it had not adjudicated the merits of either claim.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an action alleging that Defendant failed to provide adequate wheelchair-accessible parking, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court had not yet addressed the merits of any claim and issued an order requiring Plaintiff to explain why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that if Plaintiff did not respond within 14 days, the Unruh Act claim would be dismissed without prejudice without further order.