Gomez v. Elegance Properties, LLC
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-00471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Gomez v. Elegance Properties, LLC, Judge Rogers ordered Gomez to explain why his Unruh Act claim should remain in federal court, warning of dismissal if he did not respond.
Andres Gomez's California Unruh Act claim was subject to the court's order to show cause. Elegance Properties, LLC was the defendant. No claim was dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Gomez v. Elegance Properties, LLC, Andres Gomez brought a California Unruh Act claim in federal court along with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The court said that federal courts may decline to hear related state-law claims in exceptional circumstances. It identified decisions involving high-frequency litigants and Unruh Act claims as support for potentially dismissing the Unruh Act claim.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Gomez to respond in writing by May 26, 2022, explaining why the court should continue hearing that claim. The court did not dismiss the claim in this order, but warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Elegance Properties, LLC · No. 4:22-cv-00471
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 12, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez asserted a California Unruh Act claim in federal court together with a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The opinion states that the case was at an early stage.
Legal framework
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the court's discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—may be declined in exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). It cited decisions stating that the combination of a Unruh Act claim with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim brought by a high-frequency litigant typically may constitute such an exceptional circumstance.
Order
The court ordered Gomez to show cause, meaning to explain in writing, why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Gomez's written response was due by May 26, 2022. The order warned that failure to respond in writing would result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with prejudice. The order did not itself dismiss the claim or decide the merits of either claim.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order on May 12, 2022.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.