Adelfo Cerame, Jr. v. ABC Garden Grove, LLC
8:19-cv-02375
C.D. Cal.Dec 13, 2019Background
- Plaintiff filed suit asserting federal ADA injunctive relief and a state-law Unruh Act claim for statutory damages arising from alleged construction-related accessibility violations.
- The Court expressed concern that federal adjudication of Unruh damages may allow plaintiffs to evade California’s 2012 heightened pleading rules and restrictions on high-frequency litigants.
- California law imposes heightened pleading rules for "construction-related accessibility" claims and special requirements/fees for "high-frequency litigants."
- District courts have supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) but may decline to exercise it under § 1367(c), based on factors such as the relationship between the federal and state claims.
- The Court issued an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff, within 10 days, to: (1) state the amount of Unruh statutory damages sought, and (2) submit sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel with facts needed to determine whether either is a high-frequency litigant.
- The Court warned that failure to respond may lead to dismissal of the action under Rule 41(b) or that the Court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim and dismiss that claim under § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Unruh claim is part of the same Article III case or controversy as the ADA claim and belongs in federal court | Federal forum circumvents California’s statutory limits and heightened pleading rules for construction-related claims | Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined and requested specific information; court may decline jurisdiction after response or lack thereof |
| Whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a "high-frequency litigant" affecting the viability/requirements of the Unruh claim | Plaintiff will either not be a high-frequency litigant or will satisfy state requirements | Plaintiff may be a high-frequency litigant and thus subject to special fees and pleading limits designed to curb serial accessibility suits | Court required sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel to determine high-frequency status |
| Whether failure to comply with the Court’s order can lead to dismissal | Plaintiff implicitly argues compliance will avoid dismissal | Court may dismiss for noncompliance and to prevent evasion of state restrictions | Court warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) and cited authority allowing sua sponte dismissal |
| Whether Plaintiff must disclose the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act | Plaintiff must identify the damages sought | Disclosure is necessary for the Court’s jurisdictional and remedial analysis | Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (factors relevant to declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district courts may dismiss actions for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, including sua sponte dismissal)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)