Whitaker v. Elpipila LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker filed the action against Elpipila LLC on September 20, 2021. The complaint alleged that Elpipila violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act in connection with the El Pilpila restaurant in San Francisco, California. Whitaker sought injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He asserted that the court had 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 state-law claims connected to claims within its original jurisdiction. The court explained that federal law allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in several circumstances, including when a state-law claim raises complex state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, all original-jurisdiction claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court discussed decisions from federal courts in California that declined to hear Unruh Act claims accompanying ADA accessibility claims. It also relied on its recent decision in a prior related proceeding, which addressed the increase in federal filings combining ADA accessibility claims with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court stated that this filing pattern could undermine California’s procedural requirements and the role of California state courts. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations as the prior related proceeding and similar cases.

Order

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had 21 days from the order to respond. His response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel also had to submit declarations containing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfied California’s definition of a “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 would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order did not decide whether the ADA or Unruh Act claims were legally valid, and it did not state that the complaint was dismissed at that time.