Theresa Brooke v. Jade Group Indio LLC
5:25-cv-01927
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke brings a suit against Jade Group Indio LLC, alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Federal question jurisdiction exists for the ADA claim; jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims is asserted solely through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- The Court raises, sua sponte, whether it should exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, referencing concerns about federal-state comity and legislative reforms in California.
- The Court issues an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff to explain why supplemental jurisdiction should be retained over the Unruh Act and state law claims.
- Plaintiff is ordered to provide specific information, including the amount of statutory damages sought and facts sufficient to determine whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel are 'high-frequency litigants' under California law, by a set deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and other state claims in an ADA case? | Jurisdiction is proper as claims are related to ADA violation. | Links to California reforms and comity concerns call for declining jurisdiction. | Plaintiff must justify supplemental jurisdiction; no ruling yet. |
| Are Plaintiff or counsel “high-frequency litigants” under CA law? | Not stated; must be addressed in order to maintain claims. | Not stated; must be addressed per court’s directive. | Plaintiff must submit proof; no ruling yet. |
| Has Plaintiff adequately specified the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act? | Not clear from the complaint; must specify per order. | Not raised at this stage. | Plaintiff must clarify; no ruling yet. |
| What are the consequences of failing to respond to the Order to Show Cause? | N/A | N/A | Dismissal or declining jurisdiction if not adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims due to substantial federal-state comity concerns)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts may sua sponte raise subject matter jurisdiction at any time)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (court’s obligation to review subject matter jurisdiction is ongoing)