Whitaker v. Fresh Society, Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker filed an action against Fresh Society, Inc., concerning the Fresh Society store in Santa Clara, California. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief under both statutes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Whitaker asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.

Court’s analysis

Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims along with a federal claim. The court explained that federal law permits it to decline that jurisdiction in several circumstances, including when a state-law claim presents exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

The court relied on decisions discussing a recent increase in California federal cases combining ADA accessibility claims with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages for the same conduct. Those decisions expressed concern that bringing both claims in federal court could avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and interfere with California state courts’ role in applying the state’s policies. The court stated that its recent decision in a related case involved the same considerations and that this case presented those same circumstances.

Order

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had to file a response within 21 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel also had to provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they satisfied California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).

The court stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The opinion did not itself dismiss the complaint or finally decide whether the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.