Theresa Brooke v. ESC Palm Springs LLC
5:25-cv-01926
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a lawsuit against ESC Palm Springs LLC alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- The lawsuit includes both federal (ADA) and state (Unruh Act) claims, with supplemental jurisdiction asserted for the state claims.
- California has enacted stricter pleading requirements and special fees for “high-frequency litigants” in Unruh Act accessibility lawsuits to address abuse of these claims.
- The court found that Plaintiff has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility lawsuits in the past year, likely qualifying as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
- The court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to justify why the federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claim, given California's substantial interest in regulating such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law Unruh Act claim | Supplemental jurisdiction is proper as the claims are related | Allowing jurisdiction lets plaintiffs bypass state rules designed for high-frequency litigants | Plaintiff must show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined |
| Whether Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant under state law | To be determined via required declaration | Plaintiff files frequent accessibility suits, qualifying her as a high-frequency litigant | Plaintiff must provide evidence, court will decide after submission |
| California's interest in regulating accessibility suits | No specific argument detailed; must address in response | State laws and fees are meant to deter abusive litigation in state courts, which federal jurisdiction may circumvent | Court signals state's interest may outweigh retaining jurisdiction |
| Consequences of not responding to the Order to Show Cause | N/A | N/A | State-law claims may be dismissed without prejudice if Plaintiff fails to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (explains that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a right, and sets out factors for courts to consider)
- Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1990) (summarizes factors courts should weigh when deciding on supplemental jurisdiction)