Sepulveda v. Perez

Background

Richard Sepulveda sued Encarnacion Perez, Vicente Perez, and EP Real Estate Holdings LLC. The opinion states that the individual defendants own and operate El Malecon Mariscos Restaurant and that EP Real Estate Holdings LLC owns the property where the restaurant is located. Sepulveda alleges that he has physical disabilities requiring him to use a walker and that he encountered access barriers during two visits to the restaurant.

The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California Health and Safety Code provisions protecting people with physical disabilities, California civil-rights laws, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Sepulveda filed a motion for default judgment. Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation recommended granting that motion and awarding $4,000 in statutory damages, $2,660 in attorney fees, $1,007 in costs, and an injunction requiring accessible parking, accessible exterior dining tables, and a federally compliant restroom.

Issue identified by the court

Judge Chen reviewed the report and recommendation but concluded that it did not address supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain state-law claims related to claims already properly before it. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a court may decline that jurisdiction when exceptional circumstances and other compelling reasons support doing so.

The opinion discusses Ninth Circuit decisions holding that California’s Unruh Act can provide additional remedies for alleged disability-access violations, including monetary relief, while the Americans with Disabilities Act provides injunctive relief and attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit has also held that exceptional circumstances and concerns about fairness, economy, convenience, and respect for state courts can support declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim early in a case. The opinion notes that California imposes additional procedural requirements on high-frequency disability-access litigants and that Sepulveda admits he is such a litigant.

Order

Judge Edward Chen ordered Sepulveda to show cause—meaning to explain—why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court emphasized that the case was at an early stage and that it had not issued a substantive ruling on the Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

The order did not state that the court declined jurisdiction, dismiss the Unruh Act claim, grant or deny the default-judgment motion, or adopt the report and recommendation. Sepulveda was ordered to file a response within two weeks of the order’s date, serve the response on all defendants, and file proof of service. He was also ordered to serve the order on all defendants within three days and file proof of that service.