Garcia v. Singh
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-09657
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Orlando Garcia v. Sweet Moment SM, Judge Rogers ordered Garcia to explain why the court should keep his California Unruh Act claim.
The order directly affects Orlando Garcia’s California Unruh Act claim against Sweet Moment SM; the claim remained pending but was at risk of dismissal with prejudice if Garcia did not respond by May 26, 2022.
What happened
In Orlando Garcia v. Sweet Moment SM, the court considered whether to continue hearing Garcia’s California Unruh Act claim alongside his federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The court said federal courts may decline to hear state-law claims in exceptional circumstances. It cited decisions stating that a high-frequency litigant’s Unruh Act claim filed with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim can present such a circumstance.
Judge Rogers ordered Garcia to file a written explanation by May 26, 2022, showing why the court should continue hearing the Unruh Act claim. The order did not dismiss the claim at that time, but it warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Singh · No. 4:21-cv-09657
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 12, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia brought a federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim and a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against Sweet Moment SM. The opinion describes the case as being at an early stage.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim—is discretionary rather than an automatic right. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
The court cited authority stating that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings a California Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, that circumstance typically may justify dismissing the Unruh Act claim. The court then ordered Garcia to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause. It required Garcia to file a written response by May 26, 2022. The court did not dismiss the Unruh Act claim in this order. It stated that failure to respond in writing would result in the claim being dismissed with prejudice.
Disposition
The opinion contains an order to show cause, not a final ruling on dismissal. The court’s stated consequence for no written response was dismissal with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.