Adam Ghadiri v. A Dog Wash
8:22-cv-00108-JLS-DFM
C.D. Cal.Feb 25, 2022Background
- Plaintiff filed suit seeking injunctive relief under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and damages under California's Unruh Act plus other state-law claims.
- The Court sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The order explains California’s heightened pleading and filing requirements for "construction-related accessibility" claims and special rules for "high-frequency litigants," designed to curb serial Unruh Act litigation and limit statutory damages exposure for businesses.
- The Court noted that plaintiffs who bring state-law damages claims in federal court may evade those state-imposed limits.
- The Court directed Plaintiff, within 10 days, to (1) identify the amount of statutory damages sought and (2) submit declarations under penalty of perjury from Plaintiff and counsel stating all facts necessary to determine whether either is a "high-frequency litigant."
- The Court warned that failure to respond may result in dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b), and that an inadequate response will lead the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and other state-law claims | The state claims arise from the same case or controversy as the ADA claim and should remain in federal court to permit recovery of statutory damages | (Defendant not present) Court expresses concern that federal adjudication permits evasion of California's limits on frequent Unruh Act filings and damages | Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause and provide information; reserved discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) |
| Whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as "high-frequency litigant(s)" subject to special rules and fees | Plaintiff would assert they are not high-frequency litigants (or would dispute the designation) | California law treats plaintiffs and attorneys who filed 10+ construction-related accessibility suits in prior 12 months as high-frequency litigants | Court required sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel to establish high-frequency status before deciding jurisdiction and possible dismissal |
| Whether Plaintiff must disclose the amount of statutory damages sought | Plaintiff must state the damages amount to inform the court’s jurisdictional and discretionary analysis | State law aims to limit statutory damages exposure; nondisclosure frustrates the Court’s assessment | Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought within 10 days |
| Consequences for noncompliance with the show-cause order | Plaintiff may argue for more time or contend compliance is unnecessary | Court warned Rule 41(b) dismissal is appropriate for failure to comply; cited sua sponte dismissal authority | Court warned failure to respond may lead to dismissal without prejudice or to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (discusses factors courts may consider in declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (authorizes district courts to dismiss actions for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, including sua sponte dismissal)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirms district court’s authority to dismiss for failure to comply with court orders and discusses standards for dismissal)