Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-03166
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc., Magistrate Judge Hixson ordered Sepulveda to explain why state claims should remain in federal court.
Richard Sepulveda’s California state-law claims were placed at risk of dismissal without prejudice; the order also postponed the hearing on his motion for default judgment against Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc.
What happened
Richard Sepulveda sued Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc., doing business as Marathon Gas, over alleged disability-access barriers, including a lack of accessible parking. He asserted claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and several California laws. The defendant did not appear, and the court entered default. Sepulveda then asked for a default judgment.
The court questioned whether it should decide Sepulveda’s California claims along with his federal claim. It noted that Sepulveda had filed at least 10 similar construction-related accessibility complaints in the preceding 12 months, which California law treats as high-frequency litigation. The court also noted that federal courts have often declined to hear related California disability-access claims in these circumstances.
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson vacated the October 31, 2024 hearing on the default-judgment motion and ordered Sepulveda to explain in writing by October 3, 2024, why the court should not decline to hear his state-law claims. The order did not yet dismiss those claims or decide the default-judgment motion; it warned that an inadequate response could lead to a recommendation that the state claims be dismissed without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-03166
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
Richard Sepulveda filed claims against Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc., doing business as Marathon Gas. He alleged that he encountered disability-related access barriers while visiting the gas station, including a lack of accessible parking. His claims arose 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 defendant did not appear, and default was entered. Sepulveda filed a motion for default judgment on September 18, 2024.
Court’s analysis
The court issued an order requiring Sepulveda to show cause, meaning to explain why a particular action should not be taken. The court questioned whether it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside claims arising under federal law.
The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions discussing the relationship between the Unruh Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s heightened pleading and filing requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and concerns about allowing federal filings to avoid California’s procedural requirements. The court also found from its own records that Sepulveda had filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations during the 12 months before filing this case.
Order
The court vacated the hearing on the motion for default judgment that had been set for October 31, 2024. It ordered Sepulveda to respond in writing by October 3, 2024, explaining why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.
The court did not dismiss the state-law claims in this order and did not rule on the motion for default judgment. It stated that an inadequate response could result in a recommendation that supplemental jurisdiction be declined and that the state-law claims be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.