Whitaker v. Primsub Corporation
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-01100
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Primsub Corporation, Judge Tigar ordered Brian Whitaker to explain why the court should keep his California claim, warning nonresponse would lead to dismissal.
Brian Whitaker and his counsel were required to respond and provide information; Primsub Corporation was the defendant in the underlying action.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Primsub Corporation, Brian Whitaker sued Primsub Corporation over alleged accessibility violations at a Quiznos restaurant. He brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California law claim, seeking an order requiring changes, damages under California law, and legal fees and costs.
The court said it was considering whether to decline authority over the California claim. It explained that similar cases raised concerns about federal courts being used to avoid California’s additional requirements for disability-access claims and that the California claim might predominate over the federal claim.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain within 21 days why it should keep the California claim. Judge Tigar also required Whitaker and his lawyer to state the damages sought and provide information about whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law. The court warned that failing to respond in writing would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Primsub Corporation · No. 4:22-cv-01100
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker sued Primsub Corporation, alleging that a Quiznos restaurant located at or about 22312 Foothill Boulevard in Hayward, California, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought 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—authority to hear related state-law claims—over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary. It discussed decisions declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought with ADA accessibility claims. Those decisions identified concerns that filing such claims in federal court could avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and could interfere with California courts’ role in applying the state’s policies.
The court stated that this case presented the same considerations as a recent case in that court and other similar cases. It therefore considered whether extraordinary circumstances and other compelling reasons supported declining supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim.
Order
The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had to file a response within 21 days of the order and 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 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 would result in dismissal of the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order. The opinion does not state the later result of the show-cause process.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.