Garcia v. Maciel
3:21-cv-03743
| N.D. Cal. | Feb 9, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Orlando Garcia sued defendants under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act alleging accessibility violations; the federal court has ADA (federal-question) jurisdiction.
- The court issued an order to show cause whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas.
- Garcia has a history of numerous filings in the district (over 300); California enacted heightened procedural requirements aimed at high-frequency Unruh Act litigants.
- The Ninth Circuit in Arroyo found that ADA-based Unruh Act suits plus California’s procedural reforms create exceptional circumstances implicating federal–state comity.
- The magistrate judge concluded Arroyo’s comity concerns control here, found Garcia’s deposition did not supply the state-pleading information required, and dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice (so it may be refiled in state court).
- The ADA claim remains; an evidentiary hearing was continued and Garcia must state by February 18 whether he will dismiss the ADA claim or proceed (and be prepared to testify).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law Unruh Act claim brought with an ADA claim | Garcia: Ninth Circuit was wrong; comity concerns are overstated and his deposition supplies state-law required facts; federal court procedures (General Order 56) achieve similar goals | Defendants: Arroyo requires declining supplemental jurisdiction because of state procedural reforms and comity concerns | Court: Declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and dismisses the Unruh Act claim without prejudice |
| Whether the Gibbs factors (economy, convenience, fairness, comity) favor retaining jurisdiction | Garcia: Economy and efficiency favor keeping the claim in federal court; refiling is pointless | Defendants: Comity and California’s legislative scheme weigh strongly against retention | Court: Comity and legislative intent outweigh economy and efficiency at this early stage; decline warranted |
| Whether plaintiff's existing deposition negates the need to refile in state court under California's heightened pleading rules | Garcia: Deposition already provided the required information | Defendants: Deposition lacks required specifics (e.g., reasons for presence, number of prior complaints) | Court: Deposition in the record is insufficient to satisfy state pleading requirements; refiling in state court is not "pointless" |
| Procedural effect on ADA claim pending in federal court | Garcia: (implicit) may prefer to proceed in federal court | Defendants: seek dismissal of claims | Court: ADA claim remains; evidentiary hearing continued and plaintiff must decide if he will pursue ADA claim here or dismiss it |
Key Cases Cited
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (Ninth Circuit held ADA-based Unruh Act suits plus California procedural reforms create "exceptional circumstances" implicating federal–state comity)
- Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (district courts’ supplemental-jurisdiction analysis guided by Gibbs values: economy, convenience, fairness, comity)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (established the federal doctrine of pendent/supplemental jurisdiction and articulated the values guiding its exercise)
- Exec. Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 24 F.3d 1545 (9th Cir. 1994) (when declining jurisdiction under §1367(c)(4) a court must articulate why circumstances are exceptional)
- San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction under any one of §1367(c)’s provisions)
- Kuba v. 1–A Agricultural Ass’n, 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2004) (state claims are part of same controversy if they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact)