Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 21, 2022

Garcia v. An

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:21-cv-04906
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Garcia v. An, Judge Chhabria dismissed the Unruh Act claim after declining supplemental jurisdiction and ordered defendant to choose discovery or a hearing.

Who this affects

Orlando Garcia’s Unruh Act claim was dismissed from the federal case. The defendant was required to choose between jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding Garcia’s intent to return and whether he visited the establishment.

What happened

In Garcia v. An, the court considered a state-law claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court said the case was still in its early stages and described the facts as involving a frequent filer of disability-access claims seeking federal jurisdiction.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it chose not to hear the related state-law claim in federal court, and dismissed the Unruh Act claim. The court also ordered the defendant to say within 14 days whether it wanted three months of jurisdictional discovery or an evidentiary hearing.

Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order on June 21, 2022. The order did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Garcia v. An · No. 3:21-cv-04906
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
June 21, 2022

Background

The opinion concerns Orlando Garcia’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act against Chul Shik An and other defendants. The order states that the case also involved claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and describes Garcia as a frequent filer of Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to circumvent California procedural barriers.

Ruling on the Unruh Act Claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim. Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the court found exceptional circumstances supporting that decision. It also noted that the case was in its early stages, so judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts did not favor keeping the claim in federal court. The order dismissed the Unruh Act claim. It did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Further Proceedings

The court ordered the defendant to notify it within 14 days whether the defendant wanted a three-month period of jurisdictional discovery or preferred to proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing. If the defendant chose discovery, it would be allowed to investigate Garcia’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the defendant’s establishment.

Judge

Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on June 21, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.