Gomez v. Huneeus Wines LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-02528
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gomez v. Huneeus Wines, Judge Tigar ordered Gomez to explain why the court should keep his Unruh Act claim.
Andres Gomez, Huneeus Wines LLC, and Gomez’s counsel; the order specifically required Gomez and his counsel to provide information and warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the complaint.
What happened
In Gomez v. Huneeus Wines LLC, Andres Gomez sued over the accessibility of the Flowers Vineyards & Winery website, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Gomez requested disability-related court orders, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court was concerned that the state-law claim might belong in state court because similar cases can avoid California’s special requirements by being filed in federal court.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Gomez to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Gomez and his lawyer must also provide information about the damages sought and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants. The court said that failing to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the complaint, and required service of the order on Huneeus Wines LLC.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Huneeus Wines LLC · No. 4:22-cv-02528
- Jon Tigar
- May 4, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez filed this action against Huneeus Wines LLC concerning the Flowers Vineyards & Winery website. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Gomez asserted 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 claims within its original jurisdiction. The court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises complex or novel state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, the federal claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court relied on its earlier decision in a related case and on decisions discussing the recent increase in California federal cases combining ADA website-accessibility claims with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. Those decisions reasoned that filing such cases in federal court can avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and can interfere with California’s policies and the role of its state courts.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Gomez had 21 days from the order to respond and was required to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Gomez and his counsel also had to submit declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of “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 will result in dismissal of the complaint. Gomez also had to serve the order on Huneeus Wines LLC and file proof of service by May 18, 2022. The order did not decide whether the court would ultimately retain or decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.