Rafael Arroyo, Jr. v. Carmen Rosas
19 F.4th 1202
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Rafael Arroyo, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, sued Gardena Main Plaza Liquor owner Carmen Rosas under the ADA (injunctive relief) and California’s Unruh Act (damages + injunctive relief) based on physical-access barriers at the store.
- California enacted 2012–2015 reforms imposing special pleading rules and a $1,000 extra filing fee for “high-frequency” Unruh construction-related accessibility plaintiffs; these reforms apply in state court but (apparently) not in federal court.
- Arroyo (a high-frequency filer) brought the case in federal court, avoiding the state-law pre-filing burdens; he moved for summary judgment, Rosas did not oppose, and the district court granted summary judgment on the ADA claim and enjoined remediation.
- The district court nevertheless declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), citing exceptional circumstances and comity concerns from California’s procedural regime and the large migration of Unruh filings to federal court; it dismissed the Unruh claim without prejudice.
- The Ninth Circuit held that California’s procedural-impact situation can be an "exceptional circumstance" under § 1367(c)(4) generally, but that the district court abused its discretion here because it declined jurisdiction only after deciding the ADA claim—making the Unruh outcome foreordained; the court reversed and remanded, concluding Arroyo was entitled to the $4,000 statutory minimum (but not a second deterrence award).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1367(c)(4) justified declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim | Retain jurisdiction—ADA ruling already decided Unruh liability; Gibbs values favor retention | Decline jurisdiction—California’s procedural reforms and surge in federal filings create exceptional circumstances and comity concerns | Ninth: CA reforms can create exceptional circumstances, but declining after adjudication here was an abuse of discretion; reverse and remand |
| Whether California’s procedural changes constitute “exceptional circumstances” under §1367(c)(4) | Not exceptional; district court should not dismiss state claims merely to ease federal docket | Yes—combined rules create an unusual systemic shift that undermines state policy and federal‑state comity | Ninth: Agrees they may be “exceptional” in the meaningful sense and warrant case‑by‑case consideration |
| Whether timing (declining after summary judgment) matters to the Gibbs balancing | Court should retain—district court already decided facts dispositive of Unruh claim, so economy/convenience/fairness favor retention | Even late, comity and preventing evasion of state rules justify dismissal | Ninth: Timing is critical—after the ADA ruling, Gibbs values overwhelmingly favored retention; dismissal was improper |
| Appropriate Unruh damages (minimum statutory and deterrence award) | Entitled to $4,000 statutory minimum for the personal encounter; not shown to qualify for additional deterrence award | Contended insufficient evidence for deterrence/second award | Ninth: $4,000 statutory minimum awarded based on undisputed encounter; no second statutory award for deterrence because the “particular occasion” requirement was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. International Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (describing Gibbs values—economy, convenience, fairness, comity—relevant to pendent/supplemental jurisdiction)
- Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 24 F.3d 1545 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court must articulate why circumstances are "exceptional" under §1367(c)(4))
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (foundational articulation of pendent-jurisdiction factors later applied to §1367 analysis)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (injunctive relief is the primary private remedy under the ADA)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (Unruh Act statutory damages framework and $4,000 minimum discussion)
- Williams Elecs. Games, Inc. v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2007) (judicial economy can favor retaining supplemental claims when disposition is obvious)
- Wright v. Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244 (7th Cir. 1994) (if a federal claim decision disposes of pendent state claims, district court should not send them to state court needlessly)