Brooke v. Sesode LLC, 3:25-cv-00676

Theresa Brooke, a wheelchair user, sued Sesode LLC for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, primarily due to a lack of a compliant access aisle at the hotel’s passenger loading zone.
Brooke sought injunctive relief under both statutes and statutory damages under the Unruh Act.
The federal ADA claim provides only injunctive relief; the Unruh Act adds the possibility of damages and is subject to California’s heightened pleading requirements and extra filing fees for “high-frequency litigants.”
Brooke has filed over 200 similar accessibility lawsuits in the district, qualifying as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
The court ordered Brooke to show why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim, given her litigation history and the state law’s intent to deter abuse.
The court ultimately declined supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing the Unruh claim without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Brooke argued her Unruh claim is sufficiently related to the ADA claim and belongs in federal court	Sesode argued supplemental jurisdiction is improper, especially given California’s interests and anti-abuse provisions	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction, finding strong state interests, forum shopping, and abuse prevention concerns
Whether federal court is more appropriate for Unruh Act claims by high-frequency litigants	Brooke implied federal forum is proper due to identical ADA and Unruh Act standards	Sesode countered that California law intentionally creates procedural hurdles for such claims to prevent abuse	Court found allowing access to federal court would circumvent state protections against abusive litigation
If the Unruh Act claim substantially predominates over the ADA claim	Brooke argued both claims were intertwined and based on same facts	Sesode pointed out that damages under Unruh Act outweighs injunctive relief under ADA	Court agreed Unruh claim substantially predominates, justifying declination of jurisdiction
Whether plaintiff’s filing constitutes improper forum shopping	Brooke did not credibly counter the forum-shopping allegation	Sesode emphasized forum shopping to evade state law requirements	Court found clear evidence of forum shopping and improper circumvention of state law

Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 and the values informing that discretion)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (analyzing the overlap between ADA and Unruh Act claims and related forum shopping concerns)