Larry Dunn v. Mollica Property Investments, LLC
2:21-cv-07387
C.D. Cal.Nov 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiff sued under the ADA seeking injunctive relief and also asserted a California Unruh Act claim for damages, asking the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- The court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and § 1367(c) permits declining jurisdiction for reasons including comity and when state-law claims predominate or raise novel state-law issues.
- California has enacted heightened procedural limits for construction-access Unruh claims (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50) and a high-frequency litigant fee to deter abusive disability-access litigation.
- District courts in California have declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh construction-access claims to avoid letting plaintiffs ‘‘end-run’’ California’s pleading and fee rules (e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback).
- Based on these concerns, the court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to explain why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, to state the amount of statutory damages sought, and to submit declarations under penalty of perjury showing whether Plaintiff (or counsel) meets California’s “high-frequency litigant” definition.
- Plaintiff must file a response within 14 days; failure to timely or adequate respond may lead the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh and related state-law claims without further notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Seeks §1367 jurisdiction because Unruh claim arises from same case/controversy as ADA claim | (Implicit) Court should decline to prevent circumvention of California’s procedural rules and to respect state interests | Court did not decide; issued OSC requiring plaintiff to justify exercise of supplemental jurisdiction |
| Whether California’s heightened pleading and fee rules bar use of federal forum as an end-around | Plaintiff implicitly contends federal forum may hear related state claims | State interest and comity favor enforcing California’s special pleading/fee rules; federal court should defer | Court signaled comity concerns, cited authority supporting declining jurisdiction in such circumstances and requested factual support from plaintiff |
| Whether Plaintiff/counsel qualify as a “high-frequency litigant” (impacting fees/pleading requirements) | Plaintiff can show they are not a high-frequency litigant | Defendant (or court) may treat plaintiff as high-frequency litigant, triggering statutory consequences | Court ordered sworn declarations and facts to determine high-frequency status; outcome pending |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and courts may decline to exercise it)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
- Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing district courts’ discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh construction-access claim to avoid circumventing California’s pleading rules)