Theresa Brooke v. Alan Bullock
2:25-cv-05912
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act due to alleged accessibility barriers.
- The state-law Unruh Act claim is based on supplemental jurisdiction, tied to the federal ADA claim.
- California law imposes special requirements and fees for "high-frequency litigants"—plaintiffs who file many construction-related accessibility lawsuits.
- The court notes that policies behind these state-law reforms are undermined if high-frequency plaintiffs bypass them by suing in federal court.
- The plaintiff has filed more than ten similar suits in the last year and would be deemed high-frequency under California law.
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause, asking plaintiff to justify why supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim should be exercised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim? | Likely argues for judicial economy and relatedness to ADA claim. | Likely argues state interests and intent to avoid state statutory requirements for high-frequency litigants. | Issue reserved; plaintiff ordered to show cause and provide evidence; possible dismissal of state claim if not justified. |
| Is plaintiff a high-frequency litigant under California law? | May argue for narrow interpretation or exceptions. | Argues plaintiff’s high volume of filings triggers state definition and requirements. | Court finds prima facie that plaintiff meets the threshold; ordered evidence from plaintiff. |
| Do California reforms create a substantial state interest? | May argue federal court should proceed regardless of state reforms. | Argues California reforms are meant to regulate such claims and should be respected. | Court recognizes state’s substantial interest in regulating such claims. |
| Should state-law claims be heard in state court given California's specific requirements? | May push for federal venue for efficiency or strategic reasons. | Argues state court is appropriate to ensure compliance with heightened requirements. | Issue under advisement pending further briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (discusses discretion under supplemental jurisdiction)
- Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 (sets forth factors for supplemental jurisdiction evaluation)