Theresa Brooke v. Miramar Acquisition Co LLC
2:25-cv-03320
| C.D. Cal. | Apr 23, 2025Background
- The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- California requires heightened pleading standards and fees for Unruh Act claims involving construction-related accessibility, especially targeting “high-frequency litigants.”
- The federal court has original jurisdiction over the federal ADA claim but only supplemental jurisdiction over the state Unruh Act claim.
- Plaintiffs often file these claims in federal court to avoid stricter California requirements and pursue statutory damages more freely.
- The court is considering whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) due to California's policy concerns and procedural safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim | Not stated in order; plaintiff must show cause why court should retain jurisdiction | Not stated in order; the court raises California’s policy concern about federal forum shopping | Pending; plaintiff ordered to show cause, or claim will be dismissed |
| Identifying statutory damages and high-frequency litigant status | Plaintiff must specify damages and litigant status per court’s order | Not argued yet | Pending; required for court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims related to federal claims)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to comply with court orders)
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (court may sua sponte dismiss actions under Rule 41(b))