Marquise Bailey v. Ty Kea Ngov
8:22-cv-01869
C.D. Cal.Oct 19, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Marquise Bailey sued Ty Kea Ngov (as trustee) alleging violations of the ADA, California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code § 19955, and negligence.
- Bailey seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act.
- Bailey invokes federal-question jurisdiction for the ADA claim and asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- The court notes that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary (United Mine Workers v. Gibbs) and may be declined under § 1367(c) for several reasons, including predominance of state claims or exceptional circumstances.
- The court cited Ninth Circuit authority (Arroyo v. Rosas) and California district-court decisions that have declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing California’s procedural limits on high-frequency litigants.
- The court ordered Bailey to show cause by October 28, 2022 why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction, to state the amount of statutory damages sought, and to submit declarations establishing whether he (and counsel) meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” Failure to respond may lead the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims brought with an ADA claim | Bailey asserts federal-question jurisdiction for the ADA claim and seeks supplemental jurisdiction for the state claims | No argument by defendant in the record | Court ordered show-cause; signaled it may decline supplemental jurisdiction and requested further info from Bailey |
| Whether "exceptional circumstances" or predominance justify declining supplemental jurisdiction (e.g., plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant) | Bailey did not yet provide facts showing he is not a high-frequency litigant; seeks state statutory damages | No argument by defendant in the record; court relies on precedent that declining is proper to prevent circumvention of California rules | Court required Bailey to submit declarations and identify statutory damages amount so it can determine if exceptional circumstances or predominance exist and possibly decline jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims where state claims predominated and to prevent procedural circumvention)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding exceptional circumstances where allowing federal supplemental jurisdiction would allow circumvention of California’s rules limiting suits by high-frequency litigants)