Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-01213
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Starbucks, Judge Tigar ordered a response explaining why the court should keep the state-law claim.
Brian Whitaker and his counsel must respond within 21 days, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide information about high-frequency-litigant status; Starbucks Corporation is the defendant in the case.
What happened
Brian Whitaker sued Starbucks Corporation over alleged accessibility violations at a Starbucks location, bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He seeks an injunction, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over a state-law claim connected to a federal claim. It cited concerns that similar cases may bypass California’s procedural requirements and that the Unruh Act claim may predominate.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain within 21 days why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Judge Tigar also required Whitaker and his counsel to provide information about the damages sought and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants; failure to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-01213
- Jon Tigar
- May 2, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker sued Starbucks Corporation concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act at a Starbucks coffee shop located at 22288 Foothill Boulevard in Hayward, California. He seeks injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Whitaker asserted federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Court’s concern
Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. The court explained that federal law permits a district court to decline that authority when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court discussed decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA accessibility claims. It relied particularly on its earlier decision in a similar case and on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning the increased filing of ADA cases paired with Unruh Act claims. The court stated that filing these cases in federal court may avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, potentially undermining California’s reforms and the role of its state courts.
Order
The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Whitaker must file a response within 21 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought.
The court also ordered Whitaker and his counsel to include declarations providing all facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” The order states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. The order did not yet state that the court was declining jurisdiction or dismissing the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order on May 2, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.