Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-04988
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc., Judge Tigar ordered Garcia to explain why the court should keep his state-law claim, warning that no response would lead to dismissal.
Orlando Garcia and his lawyer were required to respond and provide information; Yvette Properties, Inc. faced the possible dismissal of the complaint if no written response was filed.
What happened
In Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc., Orlando Garcia sued Yvette Properties, Inc., alleging that a San Francisco store violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring compliance, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should hear Garcia’s Unruh Act claim alongside his federal disability claim. It noted that similar cases had raised concerns about avoiding California’s requirements for certain accessibility claims and about the state courts’ role in handling those claims.
Judge Tigar ordered Garcia to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline to hear the Unruh Act claim. Garcia and his lawyer also had to provide information about the damages sought and declarations addressing whether they met California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant. The court warned that failing to respond in writing would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Yvette Properties, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-04988
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 20, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia filed this action against Yvette Properties, Inc., concerning the Wai Hing Imports store in San Francisco, California. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Garcia sought injunctive relief under both statutes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He asserted federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Jurisdictional Concern
Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims connected to a federal claim. The court explained that federal law allows a court to decline that authority when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim presents exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The court relied on decisions involving similar ADA accessibility claims paired with Unruh Act claims. Those decisions discussed California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, the increase in similar filings in federal court, and concerns that federal litigation could bypass California’s requirements and undermine state courts’ role in carrying out California’s policies. The court stated that its recent decision in a related case found the same circumstances and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim.
Order
The court ordered Garcia to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Garcia had 21 days from the order to file a response. The response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Garcia and his lawyer also had to include declarations providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they met California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court did not state in this order that it was dismissing the complaint or deciding the ADA or Unruh Act claims on their merits. It warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on April 20, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.