Gomez v. Harrow Cellars
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-01071
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gomez v. Harrow Cellars, Judge Tigar ordered Gomez to explain why the court should keep his California Unruh Act claim instead of declining jurisdiction.
Andres Gomez and his counsel must respond to the order; Harrow Cellars is the defendant in the action. The order specifically concerns whether the court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gomez’s Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Gomez v. Harrow Cellars, Andres Gomez sued Harrow Cellars over the accessibility of a winery website, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought court orders, damages, and legal fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should hear the California claim alongside the federal claim. It ordered Gomez to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Gomez must also state the statutory damages sought, and Gomez and his lawyer must provide information about whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.”
Judge Jon S. Tigar did not decide the claims’ merits in this order. The order warned that failing to provide a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Harrow Cellars · No. 4:22-cv-01071
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez sued Harrow Cellars concerning the website for the Sojourn Cellars winery, which the complaint says Harrow Cellars owns. Gomez alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA, nominal damages, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Gomez 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 the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims.
Court’s analysis
The court discussed decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims filed alongside ADA accessibility claims. It explained that California has imposed additional procedural requirements on certain construction-related accessibility claims and that similar cases filed in federal court may avoid those requirements. The court stated that these circumstances can qualify as extraordinary circumstances supporting a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
The court said the case presented the same considerations as a recent case in which it declined jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim, as well as similar cases from other California federal courts. The court therefore ordered Gomez to show cause—meaning to explain why a particular action should not be taken—as to why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to file a response within 21 days. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Gomez and his counsel must also include declarations providing the facts needed to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court did not decide whether the Unruh Act claim would remain in federal court, and it did not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims. It warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered the order on April 22, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.