Garcia v. Peninsula Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-00192
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Garcia v. Peninsula Company, Judge Tigar ordered Garcia to explain why the court should retain his Unruh Act claim or face dismissal.
Orlando Garcia and his counsel must provide the required response, damages information, and declarations. Peninsula Company and Skyvolt LLC are the defendants in the action. The complaint may be dismissed if Garcia does not respond in writing.
What happened
Garcia v. Peninsula Company concerns Orlando Garcia’s claims that Peninsula Company and Skyvolt LLC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Roosevelt Wash N Dry establishment. He seeks an order requiring changes, money damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court explained that it may decline to hear a state-law claim brought alongside a federal claim when the state claim predominates or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons. It said similar California accessibility cases have raised concerns about avoiding state procedural requirements and undermining state courts’ role.
Judge Tigar ordered Garcia to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Garcia and his lawyer must identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants. The court said failure to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the complaint; it did not yet rule that the claim would be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Peninsula Company · No. 4:22-cv-00192
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Peninsula Company and Skyvolt LLC. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Roosevelt Wash N Dry establishment in Redwood City, California. Garcia seeks injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He asserts 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 related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court noted that it may decline that jurisdiction when a state-law claim substantially predominates or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court discussed decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims filed alongside ADA accessibility claims. Those decisions identified a recent influx of such cases in federal court and concerns that filing in federal court could avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims. The court stated that these circumstances could undermine California’s reforms and deprive California courts of their role in applying those policies.
The court said this case presented the same considerations as a recent related case and other similar cases. It therefore ordered Garcia to show cause—meaning to explain—why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
Order
The court ordered Garcia to file a response within 21 days. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Garcia and his counsel must also provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court stated that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not decline supplemental jurisdiction or dismiss the complaint; it required a response before taking that step.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.