Michael Harris v. Jorge A. Gaona
2:25-cv-07536
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 26, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Michael Harris filed a complaint asserting: (1) an ADA claim seeking injunctive relief; (2) an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim for damages; and (3) additional state-law claims.
- Plaintiff relies on federal-question jurisdiction for the ADA claim and on supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)) for the Unruh and other state claims.
- The Court recognized Ninth Circuit authority (Arroyo v. Rosas) that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA‑based Unruh claims because of federal–state comity concerns and potential evasion of California reforms.
- The Court noted its sua sponte duty to confirm subject‑matter jurisdiction (citing Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp. and Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.).
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to explain why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh and other state claims, and to provide (1) the amount of Unruh statutory damages sought and (2) facts (under penalty of perjury) to allow determination whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a “high‑frequency litigant” under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
- The response deadline is September 9, 2025; failure to timely or adequate respond may lead to dismissal without prejudice or the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Plaintiff implicitly seeks exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to adjudicate Unruh damages alongside ADA claim | No arguments from defendants in the record | Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should retain supplemental jurisdiction and warned it may decline under § 1367(c) |
| Whether Plaintiff must disclose the amount of Unruh statutory damages sought | Plaintiff must disclose amount to aid jurisdictional/comity analysis | Not argued by defendants | Court requires Plaintiff to state the Unruh statutory damages sought in the response |
| Whether Plaintiff or counsel are “high‑frequency litigant(s)” under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55 | Plaintiff must provide facts to permit the court to determine high‑frequency litigant status | No defendant position presented | Court requires sworn declarations with facts sufficient to determine high‑frequency litigant status |
| Court's obligation to address subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte | Plaintiff proceeds; court must confirm jurisdiction exists | N/A | Court invoked sua sponte duty to confirm jurisdiction and relied on precedent to justify inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA‑based Unruh claims because of federal‑state comity and evasion concerns)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may raise subject‑matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming sua sponte jurisdictional inquiry)