Robinson v. Lee
3:24-cv-04228
N.D. Cal.Nov 20, 2024Background
- David Robinson, a wheelchair user, sued Katherine S. Lee (owner of Loard’s Ice Cream, Oakland, CA) under the ADA and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act due to alleged architectural barriers at the ice cream shop.
- The alleged barriers included inadequate disabled-access parking and blocked entry pathways, which Robinson claims deterred him from patronizing the business.
- Robinson filed claims for both injunctive relief and monetary damages.
- Lee moved to dismiss the state Unruh Act claim, asking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) after Robinson had already filed at least 17 other similar federal cases in a year.
- The procedural posture: The case is at the pleading stage, and the federal court has not yet ruled on the merits of any claim.
- The motion raises a question of the court’s willingness to adjudicate state law claims in light of California’s legislative reforms to discourage serial ADA/Unruh Act filings in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of 12(b)(1) motion post-answer | Rule 12(b)(1) motion was untimely post-answer | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction can be raised anytime | Motion timely under Rule 12(h)(3); not barred |
| Exceptionality under §1367(c)(4) | No exceptional circumstances exist | Serial ADA/Unruh claims and CA reforms make it exceptional | Court found circumstances exceptional |
| Compelling reasons—Gibbs values | More convenient to keep claims together | Comity and fairness to state law reforms most important | Declined jurisdiction; comity/fairness outweigh convenience |
| High-frequency litigant determination | Defendant failed to prove high-frequency | Not necessary for federal court to decide; disrupts comity | Not necessary to decide for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited jurisdiction and burden lies on party asserting it)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in exceptional circumstances related to state reforms)
- Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden of showing jurisdiction rests on the party asserting it)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time by any party or the court itself)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (pendent jurisdiction considerations include economy, convenience, fairness, and comity)