Whitaker v. Sutro Shoes, Inc.

Background

An initial case-management conference was scheduled for March 3, 2022. After receiving the parties’ February 24 stipulation, the court advanced the conference. The stipulation asked to extend a January 16, 2022 deadline for a joint site inspection.

The court denied the stipulation. It stated that the parties apparently had ignored the court-imposed deadline, had not timely sought relief from it, and had not shown good cause for an extension. A later joint case-management statement indicated that the parties were exploring settlement.

Order to Show Cause

The court took judicial notice of its stated facts that Brian Whitaker was a “high-frequency plaintiff” and resided in Los Angeles County. The court ordered Whitaker to explain in writing by 3 p.m. on March 2, 2022 why, if the case did not settle, the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claim under the Unruh Act. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court cited Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). The cited decision involved an Unruh Act claim and a parallel claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion stated that, although the Ninth Circuit found an error in declining supplemental jurisdiction after deciding the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the parallel federal claim, the Ninth Circuit also indicated that declining jurisdiction could have been proper if the issue had been raised earlier.

Disposition

The court denied the parties’ stipulation and issued an order requiring Whitaker to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction if the case did not settle. The opinion does not decide whether the court ultimately would retain or decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and it does not provide a final decision on the underlying claims.