Opinion
SACV 22-00141-CJC(DFMx)
02-01-2022
YEONG LEE v. A NHUT TRAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE A NHUT TRAN AND SANG THI DO 1998 REVOCABLE FAMILY TRUST, ET AL.
PRESENT: HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS
On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff Yeong Lee filed this action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California's Disabled Persons Act, California's Unfair Competition Act, and a negligence claim. (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim based on the existence of a federal question and jurisdiction over the state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction. (Id.)
Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
A number of federal district courts across California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1030-31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because (1) “Plaintiff's state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his federal claim” and, (2) because “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California's pleading requirements.”). And the Ninth Circuit has found “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) when a plaintiff would be allowed to circumvent and render ineffectual California's “procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants” by filing an Unruh Act claim in federal court and invoking the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims based on the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Arroyo.
Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by February 8, 2022. In the response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Plaintiff and counsel shall also include declarations in their responses which provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.