Anthony Bouyer v. Jonathan Suchite
2:20-cv-02207
C.D. Cal.Mar 9, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Bouyer filed suit seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- The Court recognized it has statutory supplemental jurisdiction over the state Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California has adopted heightened pleading/verification rules for construction-access Unruh claims and a “high-frequency litigant” fee to curb abusive/unverified litigation.
- Federal district courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh construction-access claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to ‘‘end‑around’’ state procedural safeguards.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause: Plaintiff must state the amount of statutory damages sought and file declarations (under penalty of perjury) containing facts necessary to determine whether he qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant.”
- Plaintiff was ordered to respond by March 16, 2020; failure to timely/adequately respond may result in the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Bouyer: federal court should hear the Unruh claim because it arises from the same facts as the ADA claim and promotes judicial economy | Defendants/State interest: comity and California’s heightened pleading rules weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction to avoid circumventing state law | Court: Ordered plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction; warned it may decline jurisdiction if concerns not addressed |
| Whether Plaintiff has properly stated the amount of statutory damages sought | Bouyer: (implied) will identify damages in response | Defendants: (implied) plaintiff must specify damages to evaluate claim and impact of fees | Court: Directed plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought |
| Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant” under California law | Bouyer: (implied) contest or clarify status via declaration | Defendants/State interest: Plaintiff may be subject to special rules/fees if a high-frequency litigant; comity favors applying those rules | Court: Required sworn declarations with facts necessary to determine high-frequency litigant status; failure to show cause may lead to dismissal of Unruh claim |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (federal courts should weigh economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (same principle on discretionary supplemental jurisdiction)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over a high-frequency Unruh Act plaintiff to avoid end-around of California’s pleading rules)