Orlando Garcia v. 7004 Pacific Boulevard Partnership, LTD.
2:20-cv-07935
C.D. Cal.Feb 16, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Orlando Garcia sued under the ADA (seeking injunctive relief) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (seeking damages).
- The Court recognizes it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California law imposes heightened pleading requirements for construction-access Unruh claims and a "high-frequency litigant" fee to curb abusive litigation.
- Federal district courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims on comity grounds to avoid allowing plaintiffs to evade state procedural safeguards.
- The Court ordered Garcia to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim and to state the amount of statutory damages sought.
- The Court required declarations (under penalty of perjury) from Garcia and counsel addressing whether they meet California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant; failure to comply by February 26, 2021 could result in the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Garcia proceeds in federal court alongside ADA claim; supplemental jurisdiction is available | (Not separately argued in the order) Court notes state interest and risk of federal forum as an end-run around state rules | Court ordered Garcia to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to provide specified disclosures; warns it may decline jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) |
| Whether plaintiff/counsel qualify as a California "high-frequency litigant" (affecting comity analysis) | Garcia must show facts to rebut high-frequency litigant status or explain damages sought | (Implicit) State law aims to deter high-frequency litigants; if Garcia is such a litigant, comity favors declining jurisdiction | Court required declarations under penalty of perjury from Garcia and counsel about high-frequency litigant status to inform its comity/supplemental-jurisdiction decision |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when considering supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (same; federal courts should consider comity and state interests at every stage)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh claim to avoid allowing a plaintiff to evade California’s pleading and fee rules)