Whitaker v. Ohanaacai L.L.C.

Background

Brian Whitaker asserted an Unruh Act claim against Ohanaacai L.L.C. The court noted that the case was in its early stages. It also described the facts as involving a frequent filer of Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims who sought federal jurisdiction to circumvent California’s procedural barriers to those suits.

Ruling on Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain related state-law claims alongside claims over which it has original federal jurisdiction.

The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas and concluded that judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, and comity did not favor retaining jurisdiction. “Comity” here refers to respect for the role of state courts. The court also concluded that the circumstances described in the order qualified as exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), which permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in specified circumstances.

Next Procedural Step

The order requires Ohanaacai L.L.C. to notify the court within 14 days whether it wants a three-month period of jurisdictional discovery or instead prefers to proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing. Jurisdictional discovery is limited discovery used to investigate facts relevant to the court’s authority to hear a matter. If Ohanaacai L.L.C. chooses discovery, it may seek information about Whitaker’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment.

Disposition

The order is titled an order dismissing the Unruh Act claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. The opinion does not state that the dismissal is with or without prejudice. It also does not state the disposition of any other claim.