Kee Sook Ahn v. Basraon LLC
2:21-cv-03169
| C.D. Cal. | May 5, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Kee Sook Ahn sued Basraon, LLC, et al., asserting an ADA claim for injunctive relief and state-law claims for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and related California statutes and negligence.
- The Court acknowledged federal jurisdiction over the ADA claim and potential supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code claims, and negligence under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California has imposed heightened pleading requirements for construction-access Unruh claims (verified complaints specifying barriers, deterrence, and dates) and a “high-frequency litigant” fee to curb abusive litigation.
- District courts in California have sometimes declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to evade state-law pleading reforms and to respect comity.
- The Court issued an order to show cause requiring Plaintiff to justify why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, to state the amount of statutory damages sought, and to submit declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether Plaintiff (or counsel) qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant.”
- The Court set a response deadline of May 17, 2021 and warned that failure to timely or adequate respond could result in the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and related state claims | Ahn seeks to litigate state claims in federal court alongside ADA claim (implicit: federal forum is appropriate) | Defendants implicitly rely on comity and California's special pleading/fee schemes to argue state courts should adjudicate state claims | Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause; required disclosure of damages and proof re: high-frequency litigant status before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
| Whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a "high-frequency litigant" warranting deference to California's procedural protections | Ahn likely contests any finding that would permit dismissal or special sanctions (implicit) | State interests in deterring abusive, repetitive Unruh litigation support declining supplemental jurisdiction for high-frequency litigants | Court required sworn declarations under penalty of perjury to determine high-frequency litigant status; failure to comply may lead to dismissal of state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (endorsing consideration of state interests and comity in supplemental jurisdiction decisions)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim to avoid allowing plaintiff to circumvent state pleading reforms)