Whitaker v. Brownholland LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker filed this action against Brownholland LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Lux SF nail salon in San Francisco, California. He seeks injunctive relief under both statutes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Whitaker asserted federal-question jurisdiction over the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction—meaning federal-court authority over related state-law claims—over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a federal court may decline to exercise it when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim raises novel or complex state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, the federal claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court discussed decisions from federal courts in California declining supplemental jurisdiction over similar Unruh Act claims. It also relied on the court’s recent decision in a prior related proceeding, which addressed the increase in federal cases combining Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility claims with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court stated that this situation creates extraordinary circumstances and that concerns including comity, fairness, convenience, and discouraging the use of federal court to avoid California’s requirements provide compelling reasons to consider declining jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—that is, to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Whitaker must respond within 21 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel must also provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.

The court did not decide the merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Unruh Act claims, and it did not finally dismiss the complaint in this order. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.