Theresa Brooke v. Playa Proper JV LLC
2:24-cv-00762
C.D. Cal.Jan 31, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed suit against Playa Proper JV LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, along with other California state law claims.
- The ADA claim provides federal question jurisdiction, but the Unruh Act and state law claims rely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- Recent Ninth Circuit authority permits federal district courts to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims, especially amid concerns that plaintiffs may use federal courts to circumvent California's reforms.
- Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC), requiring the plaintiff to justify why the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
- The OSC specifically requires Plaintiff to disclose the amount of statutory damages sought and to provide facts about whether Plaintiff or her counsel qualify as a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55.
- The Court warned noncompliance could result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim or the entire case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act/state claims | Not yet provided; Plaintiff ordered to show cause | Not yet provided; Defendant not present | Pending. Plaintiff must demonstrate basis for supplemental jurisdiction |
| Applicability of Ninth Circuit authority allowing discretionary dismissal of Unruh Act claims | Not yet addressed | Not yet addressed | Cited Arroyo v. Rosas, court recognizes authority to decline jurisdiction |
| High-frequency litigant status | Plaintiff must clarify in response to OSC | Not addressed | Pending further filings |
| Sufficiency of complaint to maintain federal jurisdiction | ADA claim gives federal question jurisdiction; state claims dependent on §1367 | Not addressed | Jurisdiction review ongoing |
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 comity and reform evasion concerns)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (courts must confirm subject matter jurisdiction and may raise it sua sponte)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts can consider jurisdiction issues at any point during litigation)