Whitaker v. Alvarez
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-09514
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Alvarez, Judge Tigar ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should keep his state-law claim, warning that silence would lead to dismissal.
Brian Whitaker and his counsel must respond to the order and provide the required information; the order also affects Pedro M. Alvarez because it concerns the continuation of Whitaker’s complaint against him.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Alvarez, Brian Whitaker sued Pedro M. Alvarez over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act involving a restaurant. Whitaker sought an order requiring changes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain why it should not decline to hear his Unruh Act claim. It required his response within 21 days, including the amount of statutory damages sought and declarations from Whitaker and his lawyer addressing whether they meet California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant.
Judge Jon S. Tigar did not yet decide whether to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The order warned that failing to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Alvarez · No. 4:21-cv-09514
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker filed this action against Pedro M. Alvarez, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Snacks Antojitos Mexicanos restaurant in San Mateo, California. Whitaker sought injunctive relief under both laws, 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
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—is not an automatic right. Federal law allows a court to decline that jurisdiction in several circumstances, including when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.
The court relied on decisions from federal courts in California, including its earlier decision in a related case, involving ADA accessibility claims paired with Unruh Act claims. Those decisions discussed California’s procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, the availability of statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and concerns about federal filings bypassing California’s requirements and reducing the role of state courts. The court stated that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Whitaker to explain why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had 21 days from the order to respond. The response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel also had to provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they met the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court did not state that it was already declining jurisdiction or dismissing the complaint. It warned that failure 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.