Marquise Bailey v. AMKO Restaurant Furniture, Inc.
2:25-cv-05343
C.D. Cal.Jun 13, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Marquise Bailey filed suit against AMKO Restaurant Furniture, Inc. and related defendants, alleging ADA violations and related California state-law claims (Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, and Negligence).
- The action primarily seeks injunctive relief for alleged non-compliance with ADA accessibility requirements and damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- Federal jurisdiction exists over the ADA claim, with supplemental jurisdiction potentially available for the related state law claims.
- The Central District of California (Judge Dolly M. Gee) questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims due to concerns regarding high-frequency disability litigation in California.
- The court noted California's heightened pleading standards and fees for "high-frequency litigants" to curb baseless disability claims.
- Plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised for the state law claims and to declare whether he is a high-frequency litigant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act & related state claims | Bailey seeks federal forum for related relief | Defendants likely favor state adjudication | Court questions exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, orders plaintiff to justify |
| Plaintiff’s compliance with California’s pleading standards | Baum likely claims adequate facts pleaded | Defendants may argue noncompliance | Court concerned about end-around of state standards, demands clarification |
| Effect of high-frequency litigant status | Bailey may contest label | Defendants may assert he is high-frequency | Court requires signed declarations from plaintiff and counsel on this point |
| Appropriateness of statutory damages sought | Bailey seeks damages under Unruh | Defendants may challenge or characterize as excessive | Court requests explicit disclosure and justification |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (federal courts must consider economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (articulates principles for declining supplemental jurisdiction in federal court)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. recognizes exceptional circumstances to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims)