Garcia v. Seller
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-00130
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Garcia v. Seller, Judge Tigar ordered Garcia to explain why the court should keep his state-law claim, warning that failure to respond would dismiss the complaint.
Orlando Garcia must respond within 21 days and provide the required damages information and declarations. Gary F. Seller is the defendant. The order concerns whether the court will continue hearing Garcia’s Unruh Act claim and warns that the complaint will be dismissed if Garcia does not respond.
What happened
Garcia v. Seller involves Orlando Garcia’s claims that conditions at the Big Bottle Market violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring changes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should hear Garcia’s Unruh Act claim alongside his federal disability claim. It pointed to California’s special requirements for certain accessibility lawsuits and to similar cases in which federal courts declined to hear related state-law claims.
The court ordered Garcia to explain within 21 days why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. He and his lawyer also had to state the damages sought and provide facts about whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants. Judge Jon S. Tigar warned that failing to respond in writing would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Seller · No. 4:22-cv-00130
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Gary F. Seller, alleging that conditions related to the Big Bottle Market in Redwood City, California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). Garcia sought injunctive relief under both statutes, 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.
Jurisdiction issue
Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims connected to a federal claim. The court explained that it may decline that authority when, among other reasons, a state-law issue is unusually significant or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court cited cases involving ADA accessibility claims paired with Unruh Act claims. It discussed California’s additional procedural requirements for certain construction-related accessibility claims and the concern that filing the claims together in federal court could avoid those requirements and reduce the role of California courts in applying the state’s policies. The court stated that the circumstances were like those in a recent related case in which it declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims.
Order
The court ordered Garcia to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Garcia had 21 days from the order to file a response. The response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Garcia and his lawyer also had to provide declarations containing the 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 court did not yet rule that it would decline jurisdiction or dismiss the complaint. It warned that failing to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.