Gomez v. ICANN, LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08024
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gomez v. ICANN, Judge Tigar ordered Gomez to explain why the court should retain his Unruh Act claim; no final ruling was issued.
Andres Gomez and his counsel were required to respond within 21 days, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide information about high-frequency-litigant status. ICANN, LLC was the defendant. The order concerned whether the federal court would continue handling Gomez’s Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Gomez v. ICANN, LLC, Andres Gomez alleged that the Farmacy Berkeley website violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring changes to the website, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should continue handling Gomez’s state-law Unruh Act claim alongside his federal disability claim. It ordered Gomez to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline to handle that claim, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide information about whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
The court did not issue a final ruling on the claims. It warned that failing to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order was issued by Judge Jon S. Tigar.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. ICANN, LLC · No. 4:21-cv-08024
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez sued ICANN, LLC. The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act involving the Farmacy Berkeley website. Gomez sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA, 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 state-law claim.
Court’s analysis
Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal 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 supplemental jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law issue is novel or complex, the state claim substantially predominates, 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 to hear Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA website-accessibility claims. It also relied on its recent decision in a prior related proceeding, which found extraordinary circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction in similar circumstances. The court referred to concerns that federal filings could avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for certain accessibility claims and could interfere with California state courts’ role in applying those requirements.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Gomez was ordered to respond within 21 days, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether Gomez and counsel satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” The court stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
This order did not itself decline supplemental jurisdiction, dismiss the complaint, or decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.