Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiffs United African-Asian Abilities Club and its member James Lee, who has a vision disability and uses a mobility device, filed suit alleging that physical and communication barriers at Defendant's property and website prevented Lee's access in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Act. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The court recognized that it had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it was closely related to the ADA claim. However, the court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and that district courts may decline to exercise it for various reasons codified in § 1367(c), including when exceptional circumstances present other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which explained that California's 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act were intended to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related claims. Those amendments led to a surge of ADA cases filed in federal court seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Act, circumventing the state legislature's goals and rendering the new requirements largely toothless. The Ninth Circuit held that retention of supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims threatens to substantially thwart California's carefully crafted reforms and deprive state courts of their critical role in effectuating the policies underlying those reforms, presenting exceptional circumstances within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4).
Unlike Arroyo, where the district court waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction, this case is at a very early stage and the court has not yet addressed the merits of any claims. The court stated that this appears to be a case in which it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. The court ordered plaintiffs to show cause in writing within 14 days why the court should not dismiss without prejudice their Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4).
The court required plaintiffs' response to identify the amount of statutory damages they seek to recover and to be supported by declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine if plaintiffs and their counsel satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). The court warned that if plaintiffs fail to file a response within 14 days, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order.
Key Takeaways
- District courts have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when exceptional circumstances present compelling reasons for doing so.
- The Ninth Circuit has recognized that retaining supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims can threaten federal-state comity by circumventing California's legislative reforms aimed at curbing abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants.
- Where, as here, a case is at a very early stage and the court has not yet adjudicated the merits of any claims, the court may conclude that it should decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo v. Rosas, avoiding the timing problem that led to reversal in that case.
- Plaintiffs seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Act in federal court may be required to provide declarations establishing whether they and their counsel meet the statutory definition of high-frequency litigants under California law.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction can result in automatic dismissal of the state-law claim without prejudice and without further court order.
Why It Matters
This order demonstrates how federal courts in the Ninth Circuit are applying Arroyo v. Rosas to police the boundary between federal and state jurisdiction in ADA cases that include Unruh Act claims. By issuing an order to show cause at the outset of the case, the court is ensuring that any decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction is made before substantial resources are invested in litigating the state-law claim, thereby avoiding the timing problem that led to reversal in Arroyo.
The order also highlights the ongoing tension between federal and state courts over ADA litigation involving statutory damages under California law. California's legislature has attempted to curb abusive litigation by imposing procedural requirements on high-frequency litigants, but those requirements can be evaded by filing in federal court. This order reflects the federal judiciary's willingness to use supplemental jurisdiction doctrine to respect state policy choices and preserve the role of state courts in enforcing state-law reforms.