Whitaker v. Akuranvyka USA Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-09994
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Akuranvyka USA Inc., Judge Tigar ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should retain his state-law claim or face dismissal.
Brian Whitaker and Akuranvyka USA Inc.; the order specifically concerns whether the federal court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Akuranvyka USA Inc., Brian Whitaker sued over alleged accessibility violations at a Curry Up Now restaurant, bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain within 21 days why it should keep the Unruh Act claim instead of declining supplemental jurisdiction over it. He must also identify the statutory damages sought and provide information about whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant. The court warned that failing to respond in writing would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order to show cause; the opinion did not decide the merits of Whitaker’s disability-accessibility claims.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Akuranvyka USA Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-09994
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker filed an action against Akuranvyka USA Inc. concerning the Curry Up Now restaurant in San Mateo, California. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Whitaker seeks an ADA injunction, 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.
Court’s analysis
Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims related to claims within its original jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim presents exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The court relied on its recent decision in a related case and on other California federal court decisions involving ADA accessibility claims paired with Unruh Act claims. Those decisions recognized that federal filings combining these claims may avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, potentially undermining California’s reforms and the role of California courts. The court concluded that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had 21 days from the order to file a response. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel must also provide declarations containing all 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 yet rule on whether it would decline supplemental jurisdiction, and it did not 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.