Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Melanie Davis, who requires the use of a cane while traveling in public, filed suit against Gateway Towne Center, LLC and other defendants alleging that their facilities impose physical barriers that impede her access. Her complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which provides for statutory damages in accessibility cases.
Because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, the court had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, and district courts may decline to exercise it for several reasons codified in § 1367(c), including when exceptional circumstances present other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied heavily 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 filings in federal court seeking Unruh Act statutory damages, a shift that circumvented the state legislature's goals and rendered 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 those policies, presenting exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
Distinguishing Arroyo, where the district court had waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction, the court emphasized that this case is still at a very early stage and no merits determinations have been made. The court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why her Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4). The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations signed under penalty of perjury establishing whether Plaintiff and her counsel satisfy the definition of high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If Plaintiff fails to respond, 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 of the court.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims paired with ADA claims under the exceptional circumstances provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- The court's order requires the plaintiff to disclose the amount of statutory damages she seeks and to submit declarations addressing whether she and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under state law.
- Unlike the district court in Arroyo v. Rosas, this court raised the supplemental jurisdiction issue at an early stage before any merits adjudication, preserving the comity interests identified by the Ninth Circuit.
- If the plaintiff fails to respond within 14 days, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and her Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice, though her ADA claim would remain in federal court.
- The order reflects ongoing federal judicial concern that ADA plaintiffs are evading California's reforms aimed at curbing abusive accessibility litigation by filing in federal court.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how district courts within the Ninth Circuit are applying Arroyo v. Rosas to police the boundary between federal and state jurisdiction in disability access cases. By raising the supplemental jurisdiction issue sua sponte at the outset of the case, the court avoids the timing problem that led to reversal in Arroyo and positions itself to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim if the plaintiff cannot justify its retention.
The requirement that the plaintiff disclose her statutory damages demand and submit declarations about her litigation history and that of her counsel signals that courts are scrutinizing whether individual plaintiffs fit the high-frequency litigant profile that motivated California's reforms. This approach may encourage early dismissal of state-law damages claims in federal ADA cases, funneling them back to state courts where the legislature intended them to be adjudicated.