45 F.4th 1083
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiff John Ho, a paraplegic wheelchair user, visited Pepe’s Mexican Restaurant in July 2019 and alleged inaccessible parking slopes/aisles and narrow accessible paths violating the ADA and California’s Unruh Act.
- Ho sued under the ADA and Unruh Act; defendant Frederick Russi did not respond, the clerk entered default, and Ho moved for default judgment.
- Before resolving the default-judgment motion, the district court sua sponte declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), citing a surge of similar federal Unruh filings, and dismissed the state-law claim without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
- The district court characterized the dismissal as for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and allowed Ho to pursue only the ADA claim; Ho later obtained injunctive relief and reduced attorney’s fees (fees addressed separately on appeal).
- Ho appealed the dismissal of the Unruh Act claim, arguing the court erred by issuing a final order without notice and an opportunity to respond to the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may sua sponte decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim without giving notice and an opportunity to respond | Ho: Court must provide notice and chance to be heard because declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c) is discretionary, not jurisdictional | District court: Exceptional/compelling circumstances under § 1367(c)(4) justified dismissal; characterized as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, so notice not required | Reversed: Court erred. Declining supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not jurisdictional, so notice and opportunity to respond were required before dismissal |
| Whether the dismissal could be treated as dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction so that notice was unnecessary | Ho: Supplemental jurisdiction plainly existed (common nucleus of operative fact); dismissal was discretionary and thus required process | District court: Comity and flood of Unruh suits made jurisdiction inappropriate; dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction | Rejected: Carlsbad and related precedent show § 1367(c) decisions are discretionary; the two narrow exceptions allowing dismissal without notice do not apply here |
| Whether either exception permitting dismissal without notice applied (prior briefing on jurisdiction or jurisdiction obviously lacking on the face of the complaint) | Ho: No prior briefing on jurisdiction; jurisdiction not obviously lacking on complaint | District court: Claimed lack of jurisdiction due to broader policy reasons | Held: Neither exception applies—parties had not previously litigated jurisdiction and the jurisdictional defect was not facially incurable |
| Remedy: Whether dismissal should be vacated and case remanded | Ho: Vacate dismissal and permit briefing on supplemental jurisdiction | Russi/District Ct: Affirm dismissal | Held: Reversed and remanded for further proceedings allowing Ho notice and an opportunity to be heard (fees issue separate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Superior Ct., 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1962) (notice required before dismissal on merits unless narrow exceptions apply)
- Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., 336 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction from discretionary dismissals that require notice)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (exercise of discretion under § 1367(c) is not a jurisdictional matter)
- Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (district court must provide notice and opportunity before sua sponte declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (extraordinary circumstances may justify declining supplemental jurisdiction in combined ADA/Unruh cases)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary doctrine)
- Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v. Desert Valley Landscape & Maint., Inc., 333 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2003) (common nucleus of operative fact test for supplemental jurisdiction)
- Kieslich v. United States (In re Kieslich), 258 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2001) (supplemental-jurisdiction objections may be waivable)