Whitaker v. Neighborhood Market and Cafe Inc

Background

Brian Whitaker sued Neighborhood Market and Cafe Inc. The opinion identifies claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court focused on two jurisdictional issues: whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim and whether Whitaker had Article III standing to pursue the ADA claim.

State-law claim

The court stated that federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. It explained that, when a “high-frequency” litigant brings a California Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an ADA claim, that combination will typically qualify as an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. The court therefore ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. The order did not yet dismiss the Unruh Act claim.

Federal claim and requested evidence

The court stated that federal courts must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even if no party challenges jurisdiction. It ordered Whitaker to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to establish the constitutional basis for being in federal court.

Whitaker and his counsel must each submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury within 21 days. Whitaker’s declaration must provide support for his alleged intent to return to the defendant’s establishment and detailed support for his allegation that he visited the establishment initially. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation conducted to verify that Whitaker visited the establishment and intends to return.

Further proceedings and disposition

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

The court vacated all other deadlines in the case and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. It stated that failure to respond to the order within 21 days would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order itself was an order to show cause and did not finally resolve either jurisdictional issue.