Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc.
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-05571
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc., Judge Ryu ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should keep his state-law claim after his disability claim became moot.
Brian Whitaker must respond within seven days to the court’s question about whether it should continue hearing his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. The order also concerns Pita Hub Inc., but it does not finally resolve that claim.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc., Brian Whitaker told the court that his request for an order requiring access under the Americans with Disabilities Act was now moot. His remaining claim was under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court questioned whether it should continue hearing the California claim after the federal claim became moot. It discussed Ninth Circuit guidance that unusual circumstances involving ADA-based Unruh Act cases can create serious concerns about interference with California’s handling of those cases.
Judge Ryu ordered Whitaker to show cause, meaning to explain, why the court should not decline to continue hearing the Unruh Act claim. The court required his response within seven days of the order; it did not make a final ruling on the claim in this order.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-05571
- Donna Ryu
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
The court reviewed Brian Whitaker’s notice stating that his claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) had become moot. The case also included a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Court’s analysis
The court raised whether it should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim. 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 court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which recognized that the interaction of several California-law rules had produced an unusual systemic effect on ADA-based Unruh Act cases. According to the cited decision, the resulting movement of these cases into federal court could undermine California’s procedural reforms and interfere with the state’s role in carrying out its policies. The court also cited a prior related proceeding in which a court declined supplemental jurisdiction because those comity concerns outweighed possible effects on efficiency and economy.
Order
Following that guidance, Judge Donna Ryu ordered Whitaker to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim. Whitaker was ordered to file a response within seven days from March 9, 2022. This order did not dismiss the Unruh Act claim or otherwise state a final disposition of it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.