Samuel Zarian v. Public Storage
2:20-cv-02858
C.D. Cal.Mar 30, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Samuel Zarian sued under the ADA (injunctive relief) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (damages).
- The court acknowledged it has potential supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California enacted stricter pleading requirements for construction-access Unruh claims (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50) and a "high-frequency litigant" fee statute to curb abusive filings.
- District courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to circumvent state procedural reforms and fees.
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to file sworn declarations showing facts necessary to determine whether he qualifies as a "high-frequency litigant" under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
- Plaintiff was ordered to respond by April 9, 2020; failure to timely/adequately respond may result in 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 damages claim | Zarian seeks to retain the Unruh damages claim in federal court under § 1367(a) | Comity, California's heightened pleading rules, and the high-frequency litigant regime counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction | Court ordered Zarian to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and required specific information; may decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) if response is inadequate |
| Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a "high-frequency litigant," affecting the comity analysis | Zarian must show, via sworn declarations, facts that demonstrate he is not (or is) a high-frequency litigant | State interest in deterring repetitive, vexatious filings supports scrutiny; court needs factual proof to apply California's standard | Court required declarations under penalty of perjury addressing the § 425.55 criteria and set a response deadline; failure may lead to dismissal of the Unruh claim |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (directs courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (supports consideration of comity and state interests in supplemental jurisdiction decisions)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim to avoid an end-run around California's pleading requirements)