Summary
A United States magistrate judge recommends that the Eastern District of California decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Theresa Brooke’s California Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state-law claims accompanying her Americans with Disabilities Act claims. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Ninth Circuit precedent, the recommendation concludes that California’s procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims create exceptional circumstances and compelling fairness and comity concerns. The state-law claims would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court, subject to objections within 14 days.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and related California state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- Whether the circumstances were exceptional and compelling reasons supported declining jurisdiction based on the potential evasion of California's procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims.
- Whether the state-law claims should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Holdings
- The court recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- The court recommended dismissing Plaintiff's Unruh Act claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
Key quotations
“First, the district court must articulate why the circumstances are exceptional within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4).” (Governing Legal Standards at 1)
“Second, in determining whether there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in a given case, the court should consider what best serves the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine articulated in [United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)].” (Governing Legal Standards at 1)
“The Court notes it need only determine whether California’s requirements are implicated, not whether they are in fact met.” (Discussion at 2)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that she encountered accessibility barriers while visiting a facility owned, operated, or leased by Defendants. She asserted claims under the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendants had not appeared, and the litigation remained at an early stage when the findings and recommendations were issued.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action on September 7, 2025. After the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in light of Ninth Circuit precedent, Plaintiff timely responded. The magistrate judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissing them without prejudice to refiling in state court; the recommendation was subject to objections within 14 days and had not yet become a final district-court order.
Remand instructions
No remand was ordered. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice to refiling the state-law claims in state court.