James Shayler v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC
2:20-cv-11613
C.D. Cal.Jan 11, 2021Background
- Plaintiff James Shayler sued Advance America asserting an ADA claim for injunctive relief and a state-law Unruh Act claim for damages.
- The district court acknowledges it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California enacted stricter pleading rules for construction-access Unruh claims (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50; Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1)) and a "high-frequency litigant" fee (Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5) to curb abusive filings.
- Federal district courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh construction-access claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to evade those state-law procedural safeguards.
- Citing comity and the values described in City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim.
- The Court required Plaintiff to (1) state the amount of statutory damages sought and (2) file declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether Plaintiff or counsel meet the statutory definition of a "high-frequency litigant;" response due January 21, 2021, or the Court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh claim under § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Shayler seeks to retain the Unruh claim in federal court alongside the ADA claim | Not presented in the record; court highlights state interests and comity favoring decline | Court did not decide yet; issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction and to provide specified information and declarations |
| Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a "high-frequency litigant" (triggering state burdens/fees) | Implied: Plaintiff will provide facts showing he is not a high-frequency litigant or otherwise justify retention | Not presented; court requires factual showing to evaluate status | Court ordered Plaintiff to submit declarations under penalty of perjury to allow determination of high-frequency status; outcome pending |
Key Cases Cited
- 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) (same principle supporting discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claim to avoid permitting a federal end-around of California pleading requirements)