Brian Whitaker v. Birds Bar and Cafe, LLC, 2:19-cv-07405

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker filed a federal suit in the Central District of California seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court acknowledged it has potential supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
California adopted heightened pleading rules and verification requirements for Unruh construction-access claims (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50; Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52) and a high-frequency litigant fee (Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5) to curb abusive litigation.
District courts in California have declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to evade these state-law reforms (e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback).
The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Whitaker to justify why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim, to state the amount of statutory damages sought, and to file declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether he (or his counsel) meet the statutory definition of a “high-frequency litigant.”
Plaintiff has ten days to respond; failure to timely or adequate respond may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Whitaker would assert the federal court may hear the Unruh damages claim alongside the ADA claim	Defendant would argue federal forum improperly circumvents California’s stricter Unruh pleading/fee rules and comity counsels against jurisdiction	Court did not immediately decide; issued OSC requiring plaintiff to justify exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and supply specific information; warned dismissal possible under § 1367(c)
Whether plaintiff (or counsel) is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law	Whitaker may deny high-frequency status or show facts to avoid that label	Defendant would assert plaintiff/counsel are high-frequency litigants whose pattern justifies declining jurisdiction	Court ordered sworn declarations with all facts necessary for the court to determine high-frequency litigant status per Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)
Whether plaintiff must identify amount of statutory damages sought	Whitaker must state the statutory damages amount sought for the court to assess the claim	Defendant would rely on the need for specificity to evaluate ripeness/comity and potential state-law implications	Court ordered plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought as part of the OSC response

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (comity and judicial values guide discretionary supplemental jurisdiction decisions)
Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim to avoid circumventing California’s pleading rules and deter high-frequency litigants)