Theresa Brooke v. Jey Properties LLC
5:25-cv-01928
| C.D. Cal. | Aug 4, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a federal lawsuit against Jey Properties LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and seeking damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- The ADA claim provides federal question jurisdiction; the Unruh Act claim is a parallel state law accessibility claim often joined with ADA lawsuits.
- The court notes California’s Unruh Act imposes heightened pleading and verification requirements for high-frequency, construction-access plaintiffs.
- The court references recent legislative efforts in California to address potential abuses by serial plaintiffs and lawyers in accessibility litigation.
- The court raises the issue of whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brooke’s Unruh Act claim, ordering Brooke to justify why the federal court should retain the state law claim.
- Brooke must submit declarations confirming whether she and her counsel satisfy the definition of “high-frequency litigant,” and include case-filing statistics within the required timeframe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brooke’s state law Unruh Act claim | Not yet stated; will respond to court’s order to show cause | Not stated in this order | Court orders plaintiff to show cause; may decline jurisdiction if not justified |
| Applicability of heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act high-frequency litigants | Not yet stated | Not stated | Plaintiff must provide data and supporting declarations; court will assess compliance |
| Whether Brooke and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under state law | Not yet stated | Not stated | Plaintiff ordered to declare number of prior relevant case filings in last 12 months |
| Consequence for failure to respond to the show cause order | Not stated | Not stated | Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction without further warning |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court recognizes that federal courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in considering supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court established factors for discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)