Garcia v. Romo

Background

The plaintiff brought claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims when a federal claim is also pending—in exceptional circumstances. It explains that when a high-frequency litigant brings an Unruh Act claim with an ADA claim, that combination will typically qualify as an exceptional circumstance. The court therefore ordered the plaintiff to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and Standing

The court also stated that federal courts must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges jurisdiction. It ordered the plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. The plaintiff’s declaration must be sworn under penalty of perjury and must substantiate the allegation that the plaintiff intends to return to the defendant’s establishment. It must also provide detailed support for the allegation that the plaintiff personally visited the establishment in the first place.

The plaintiff’s counsel must submit a separate declaration under penalty of perjury describing, in detail, the investigation counsel conducted to ensure that the plaintiff visited the establishment and intends to return. The court referred to allegations by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, but the opinion did not decide those allegations.

Further Proceedings and Disposition

If the declarations appear facially adequate, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning the plaintiff’s intent to return and whether the plaintiff personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurs, the court stated that it will likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.

The plaintiff and counsel must respond within 21 days of the order. The court stated that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. Pending the response, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. Judge Vince Chhabria issued the order to show cause; the order itself did not dismiss the action or finally decide the jurisdictional issues.