Whitaker v. Vasquez

Background

Brian Whitaker brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—that is, jurisdiction over a related state-law claim—when exceptional circumstances exist. Citing Arroyo v. Rosas, the court explained that a litigant who frequently brings claims under the Unruh Act together with ADA claims may present such circumstances.

Order to show cause

The court ordered Whitaker to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim, assuming that federal jurisdiction over the ADA claim exists. The court also ordered Whitaker to explain why the entire case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to establish, among other things, a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.

Because allegations had been made by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, the court required Whitaker’s counsel to submit one or more detailed declarations. The declarations must support the allegations that Whitaker visited the establishment. If Whitaker relied on an intent to return, counsel had to address that intent. If Whitaker relied on deterrence, counsel had to describe when and how he visited, when and how he was deterred, his intent to return to the geographic area, and his desire to return to the facility if it became accessible.

Whitaker also had to submit a separate declaration under penalty of perjury addressing the jurisdictional facts needed to establish a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Vasquez could choose to conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning Whitaker’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. The court stated that, whether or not such discovery occurred, it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to examine the truth of the jurisdictional allegations.

Disposition

This was an order to show cause, not a final decision on the claims. Whitaker and his counsel were required to respond by May 19, 2022. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. Judge William Alsup did not, in this order, decide whether Whitaker had standing, whether the court had jurisdiction over the ADA claim, whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the Unruh Act claim, or whether the claims had merit.