Whitaker v. Cardo Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-07587
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Whitaker v. Cardo Inc., Judge Chhabria dismissed the Unruh Act claim after declining supplemental jurisdiction and directed Cardo to choose discovery or a hearing.
Brian Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim against Cardo Inc.; Cardo Inc. must choose between jurisdictional discovery and proceeding directly to an evidentiary hearing.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Cardo Inc., the court declined to keep jurisdiction over Brian Whitaker’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and dismissed that claim.
The court said the case was still at an early stage, so keeping the claim would not promote efficiency, convenience, fairness, or respect for state courts. It also found that the circumstances involving a frequent filer of Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims were exceptional reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court ordered Cardo Inc. to tell it within 14 days whether it wanted three months of jurisdiction-related discovery or an evidentiary hearing. Judge Vince Chhabria said any discovery could address Whitaker’s intent to return and whether he had personally visited Cardo’s establishment.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Cardo Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-07587
- Vince Chhabria
- July 6, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker brought an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against Cardo Inc. The court described the case as involving a frequent filer of Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims who sought federal jurisdiction to avoid California’s procedural barriers to those suits.
Ruling
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. It concluded that the case was in its early stages and that judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, and respect for state courts did not support keeping jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court also found that the circumstances presented exceptional reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) for declining supplemental jurisdiction.
The order is titled an order dismissing the Unruh Act claim. It does not state that the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Further proceedings
The court ordered Cardo Inc. to notify the court within 14 days whether it wanted a three-month period of jurisdictional discovery or preferred to proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing. If Cardo chose discovery, it could seek information about Whitaker’s intent to return and whether he had personally visited Cardo’s establishment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.