Gomez v. Del Dotto Vineyards
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-09601
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gomez v. Del Dotto Vineyards, Judge Tigar ordered Gomez to explain why the court should retain his state-law claim.
Andres Gomez, his counsel, and Del Dotto Vineyards; the order required Gomez and his counsel to respond and warned that the complaint would be dismissed if no written response was filed.
What happened
In Gomez v. Del Dotto Vineyards, Andres Gomez sued Del Dotto Vineyards over alleged accessibility problems on its website. He brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a state-law claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court ordered Gomez to explain why it should keep the Unruh Act claim rather than decline supplemental jurisdiction over it. The court cited similar California cases and concerns that federal filings could avoid California’s procedural requirements for accessibility claims. It also required Gomez to identify the statutory damages sought and required Gomez and his lawyer to provide information about whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants.
Judge Jon S. Tigar gave Gomez 21 days to respond. The order did not yet dismiss the case or decide the claims’ merits, but it warned that failing to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Del Dotto Vineyards · No. 4:21-cv-09601
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez filed this action against Del Dotto Vineyards, alleging that the vineyard’s website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought a declaration and an injunction under the ADA, along with nominal damages, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, attorney’s fees, and costs. Gomez asserted federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Issue and analysis
The order focused on supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims connected to a federal claim. The court explained that it may decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim raises complex state-law issues, substantially outweighs the federal claim, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court relied on its recent decision in a related case and on decisions from other California federal courts. Those decisions addressed the increase in cases pairing ADA accessibility claims with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court noted that California had imposed additional procedural requirements on construction-related accessibility claims and that filing such cases in federal court could create an end-run around those requirements. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations as those earlier cases.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Gomez had 21 days from the order to respond. His response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Gomez and his counsel also had to submit declarations providing all facts needed 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 order stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. It did not itself dismiss the complaint, decline jurisdiction, or resolve the ADA or Unruh Act claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.