Theresa Brooke v. Shante Enterprises Inc., 2:25-cv-03618

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, a wheelchair user, filed suit alleging Shante Enterprises violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Act by failing to provide adequate parking facilities.
The Unruh Act claim is brought in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, alongside the primary ADA claim.
The district court notes its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The Ninth Circuit in Arroyo v. Rosas recognized that retaining jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in federal court can undermine California’s legislative intent to limit high-frequency litigation.
The case is at an early stage with no adjudication of merits.
The Court orders Brooke to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined and instructs her to provide facts related to the frequency of her and her counsel's litigation within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim given California’s reforms and federal-state comity interests	Likely asserts entitlement to proceed; close relation between ADA and Unruh claims	Likely silent at this stage (order sua sponte)	Court finds exceptional circumstances justifying potential declination of jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4); orders plaintiff to show cause.
Whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law	Not yet addressed; must respond to order	Not yet addressed	Plaintiff ordered to submit declarations with relevant facts.
Whether early-stage procedural posture affects supplemental jurisdiction discretion	Not yet addressed	Not yet addressed	Court distinguishes from Arroyo, finding early procedural stage weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction.
Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice	Not yet addressed	Not yet addressed	If court declines jurisdiction, dismissal will be without prejudice.

City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court recognizes supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims may be justified due to California’s anti-abusive litigation reforms and the interests of comity)