Brian Whitaker v. Dar Franklin, LLC
2:19-cv-07408
C.D. Cal.Dec 20, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Brian Whitaker sued under the ADA (seeking injunctive relief) and under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (seeking damages). The federal ADA claim supplies federal-question jurisdiction; the Unruh claim is asserted under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
- The Court noted California law adopted heightened pleading requirements for Unruh construction-access claims (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50) and a “high-frequency litigant” fee statute to curb repetitive, baseless accessibility litigation.
- Federal courts in California have, on comity and fairness grounds, sometimes declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh construction-access claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to evade the state’s stricter rules (see Schutza v. Cuddeback as an example).
- Citing the supplemental-jurisdiction statute and Supreme Court precedents on the need to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court questioned whether it should retain the Unruh claim.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) directing Whitaker to explain in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim.
- The Order requires Whitaker to state the amount of statutory damages sought and to file declarations under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine whether he (or his counsel) meet the statutory definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” Response is due within ten days; failure to respond may result in dismissal of the Unruh claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Whitaker: federal ADA anchor supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction and resolving related state claims in federal court | Defendants: comity and California’s heightened rules counsel declining jurisdiction to prevent circumvention of state law | Court issued OSC under §1367(c); plaintiff must show cause why the Court should exercise jurisdiction; failure may lead to decline and dismissal |
| Whether Plaintiff is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law | Whitaker: (implicit) not a high-frequency litigant or will provide facts to refute that status | Defendants: (implicit) plaintiff may be a high-frequency litigant, supporting decline of jurisdiction and application of state fee rules | Court ordered declarations under penalty of perjury to establish high-frequency litigant status for decision-making |
| Whether Plaintiff must disclose the amount of statutory damages sought | Whitaker: (implicit) may prefer not to disclose amount; argues federal forum is appropriate | Defendants: (implicit) disclosure necessary for the Court’s supplemental-jurisdiction and discretionary-analysis | Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages amount in his response |
| Consequences of failing to satisfy the Court’s comity/pleading concerns | Whitaker: (implicit) compliance with OSC will preserve the Unruh claim in federal court | Defendants: (implicit) noncompliance should prompt dismissal of state claim and force state-court resolution | Court warned that failure to timely or adequate respond may result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissal of the Unruh claim under §1367(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (factors — economy, convenience, fairness, comity — for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (federal courts should weigh comity and other interests at each stage when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claim to avoid allowing a plaintiff to evade California pleading rules)