Sepulveda v. Isa

Background

Richard Sepulveda sued Adel Saleh Isa, doing business as Los Primos Market and Produce, and Abdo Isa. He alleged that he encountered barriers at the market, including a lack of accessible parking and inaccessible sales counters and aisles. His complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Health and Safety Code, the California Disabled Persons Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The defendants had not appeared, and the clerk had entered default. Sepulveda then filed a motion for default judgment. The hearing on that motion had been scheduled for June 20, 2024.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside claims over which it has original federal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise that authority in appropriate circumstances.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent stating that federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims and related California disability-access claims. The court explained that California has imposed heightened pleading requirements and other filing restrictions for construction-related accessibility claims, including special rules for “high-frequency litigants.” California defines a high-frequency litigant as a plaintiff who filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations during the 12 months before the current complaint.

After reviewing Sepulveda’s prior cases in the district, the court found that he had filed at least 10 such complaints during the relevant period. The court stated that federal courts have frequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over California disability-access claims and have denied default-judgment motions without prejudice to renewal as to the remaining Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Order

Judge Thomas S. Hixson vacated the hearing on Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment. He ordered Sepulveda to show cause in writing by July 1, 2024, why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court warned that an inadequate response could result in the undersigned recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over those claims be declined without prejudice.

This order was an order to show cause. It did not itself decline supplemental jurisdiction, dismiss any claim, or rule on the motion for default judgment.