Arroyo v. 360 Global Venture Group, LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-00013
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Arroyo v. 360 Global, Judge Tigar ordered Arroyo to explain why the Unruh Act claim should remain in federal court.
Rafael Arroyo and his counsel must respond within 21 days and provide information about the damages sought and high-frequency-litigant status. The complaint could be dismissed if no written response is filed.
What happened
Arroyo v. 360 Global Venture Group, LLC concerns Rafael Arroyo’s claims about accessibility at a hotel. He sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking an injunction, statutory damages, and fees and costs.
The court said California federal courts had often declined to hear Unruh Act claims paired with similar disability-access claims under supplemental jurisdiction. It identified concerns about California’s procedural requirements, the role of state courts, and possible forum shopping.
Judge Tigar ordered Arroyo to show cause within 21 days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Arroyo and his lawyer must state the statutory damages sought and provide information about whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants; failing to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Arroyo v. 360 Global Venture Group, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-00013
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 20, 2022
Background
Rafael Arroyo filed this action against 360 Global Venture Group, LLC. He alleged that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act in connection with the Wyndham Garden San Jose Silicon Valley hotel. He sought injunctive relief under both statutes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Arroyo alleged that the federal ADA claim gave the court federal-question jurisdiction and that the court could hear the Unruh Act and other state-law claims through supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside a federal claim.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that federal law permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so. The court reviewed decisions from federal courts in California that declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims accompanying ADA accessibility claims.
Those decisions identified a recent increase in ADA cases paired with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court noted that California had imposed additional procedural requirements on construction-related accessibility claims and that federal pleading rules generally do not apply those state requirements in federal court. Relying on the reasoning discussed in a recent related order and Ninth Circuit authority, the court concluded that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court did not yet decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction or dismiss the complaint. Instead, Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Arroyo to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Arroyo had 21 days from the order to file a written response.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Arroyo and his counsel must also submit declarations providing all facts needed for the court to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.