Whitaker v. T Rock Inc.

Background

The opinion states that Brian Whitaker filed the action against T Rock Inc. on January 14, 2022. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Happy Lemon establishment in San Jose, California. He sought an injunction under the ADA and Unruh Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Whitaker asserted 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 alongside claims arising under federal law.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that federal law allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other things, a state-law claim raises unusual or complex state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons not to hear it.

The court discussed decisions from federal courts in California that declined to hear Unruh Act claims joined with ADA accessibility claims. It also relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, which addressed the increase in ADA accessibility filings accompanied by Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. According to the opinion, California had adopted additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and federal court filings could avoid those requirements because federal courts apply federal procedural rules. The court concluded that this situation presented extraordinary circumstances and that there were compelling reasons to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Order

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. He was given 21 days from the order to file a response.

The court required the response to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. It also required Whitaker and his counsel to submit declarations providing all 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 stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not dismiss the complaint, rule on the ADA claim, or decide the merits of either claim.