Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Melanie Davis, who requires the use of a cane while traveling in public, filed suit against Defendants GGF, LLC and others, alleging that their facilities impose physical barriers that impede her access. She brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case is at a very early stage, and the court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of the claims.
The Unruh Act is a California civil rights statute that provides for statutory damages in disability access cases. In 2012 and 2015, the California Legislature amended the Unruh Act to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related claims. These amendments imposed additional procedural requirements on such litigants in state court.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that it has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it is closely related to the ADA claim. However, supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, and district courts can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for valid reasons. Under § 1367(c)(4), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances when there are compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
Relying on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, the court found that the California Legislature's amendments had led to a surge of ADA cases seeking Unruh Act statutory damages in federal courts, circumventing the state legislature's goals and rendering the new statutory 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).
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. The court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing within 14 days why the court should not dismiss without prejudice her Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4). The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and be supported by declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine if Plaintiff and her counsel satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If Plaintiff fails to file a response within 14 days, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim, and the Unruh Act 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 brought alongside ADA claims under the exceptional circumstances provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- The comity interest in preserving California's legislative reforms targeting high-frequency litigants can justify declining supplemental jurisdiction, and the court here found that interest applicable at this early stage before any merits adjudication.
- A plaintiff seeking to retain an Unruh Act claim in federal court must be prepared to disclose the amount of statutory damages sought and provide declarations establishing whether she and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under state law.
- Failure to respond to the show-cause order will result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and the Unruh Act claim being automatically dismissed without prejudice without further court order.
- The timing of a court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction matters; in Arroyo the Ninth Circuit reversed because the district court waited until after summary judgment on the ADA claim, effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Ninth Circuit's directive in Arroyo v. Rosas that federal district courts should seriously consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in ADA cases early in the litigation. It signals to plaintiffs and their counsel that federal courts will actively police the boundaries of supplemental jurisdiction to prevent the evasion of California's procedural reforms aimed at curbing abusive disability access litigation.
The requirement that plaintiffs disclose statutory damages sought and submit declarations regarding high-frequency litigant status creates a practical screening mechanism that may deter some filings or push more Unruh Act claims into state court, where the legislature intended them to be resolved. This development is significant for both disability rights advocates and businesses defending against accessibility claims in California.