Whitaker v. Salah
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-09548
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Whitaker v. Salah, Judge Rogers ordered Brian Whitaker to explain why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Brian Whitaker, whose California Unruh Act claim was subject to the order to show cause and possible dismissal; Salah R. Salah is the defendant.
What happened
Brian Whitaker sued Salah R. Salah in federal court, asserting a California Unruh Act claim alongside an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court considered whether it should continue hearing the state-law claim.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain in writing why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because the case was still at an early stage and exceptional circumstances may apply. The court did not dismiss the claim at this point.
Whitaker must respond by May 26, 2022. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned that failing to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Salah · No. 4:21-cv-09548
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 17, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker brought this federal case against Salah R. Salah. The opinion refers to an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and a California Unruh Act claim. The Unruh Act claim is a state-law claim.
Court’s analysis
Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims in a federal case—but that authority is discretionary. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. The court cited decisions stating that asserting a California Unruh Act claim with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim can present such circumstances when the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant.
The court also noted that the case was at an early stage. It therefore ordered Whitaker to show cause, meaning to provide a written explanation, why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.
Order and effect
The court ordered Whitaker to file a written response by May 26, 2022. The opinion did not dismiss the Unruh Act claim at that time. It stated that failure to respond in writing would result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with prejudice, meaning the claim could not be brought again in that case. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.