Theresa Brooke v. Jade Group Indio LLC
5:25-cv-01927
C.D. Cal.Aug 7, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed suit against Jade Group Indio LLC alleging violations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, as well as additional state law claims.
- The ADA claim provides a federal jurisdictional basis; the Unruh Act and other state claims are before the court through supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- The court is considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims due to policy concerns about federal courts being used to bypass California's recent reforms targeting high-frequency Unruh Act litigation.
- Citing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, the court notes the significant federal-state comity issues presented by ADA-based Unruh Act claims.
- Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued an order requiring Brooke to show cause in writing why the court should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state claims.
- The court demands factual disclosures regarding statutory damages sought and whether Brooke or her counsel qualify as “high-frequency litigants” under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state claims | Federal court should resolve all related claims for efficiency | Federal court should abstain due to state reforms and concerns about forum shopping | Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause; no ruling yet |
| Requirement for Plaintiff to disclose damages and litigation status | N/A (order to provide) | N/A (order to provide) | Plaintiff must provide statutory damages sought and "high-frequency litigant" status before August 21, 2025 |
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 to protect federal-state comity)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts have a sua sponte duty to confirm subject matter jurisdiction)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts can address subject matter jurisdiction at any time)