Whitaker v. GS Pacific ER LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker filed the action against GS Pacific ER LLC and Fantasy Beauty Spas, Inc. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Fantasy Nails establishment in San Jose, California. He sought injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Whitaker alleged that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal law allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other reasons, a state-law claim raises novel or complex state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court discussed decisions from federal courts in California that declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims paired with ADA accessibility claims. Those decisions identified concerns involving California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, the increased filing of combined ADA and Unruh Act cases in federal court, the role of California courts in applying the state’s policies, and possible circumvention of California pleading requirements.

The court stated that its recent decision in a prior related proceeding involved the same considerations and found extraordinary circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations.

Order

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

The court stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not state that the court had already dismissed the complaint or declined supplemental jurisdiction. The order was signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar.