Garcia v. Sood

Background

Orlando Garcia asserted a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California claim under the Unruh Act. He invoked supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain related state-law claims. The order did not resolve the merits of either claim.

Administrative motion

On July 5, 2022, Garcia filed an administrative motion under Civil Local Rule 7-11. He asked the court to order the defendants to provide three dates when they were available for a settlement meeting under paragraph 8 of General Order 56. He also requested attorneys’ fees for bringing the motion after, according to the motion, the defendants did not respond to his settlement-meeting request.

The court explained that Rule 7-11 provides an expedited procedure for miscellaneous administrative matters not governed by another statute, federal rule, local rule, or standing order. The court held that Garcia’s request did not fall within that procedure, at least as to his request for monetary sanctions. It cited Civil Local Rule 7-8, which requires sanctions motions to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2. The court therefore denied the administrative motion without prejudice to Garcia’s bringing a noticed motion under Rule 7-2 after resolution of the order-to-show-cause issue.

Order to show cause and supplemental jurisdiction

The court ordered Garcia to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that California’s procedural rules for disability-access cases brought by frequent plaintiffs may create exceptional circumstances supporting a decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It also cited the court’s earlier ruling in a related proceeding, which held that this reasoning warranted declining supplemental jurisdiction in a typical case involving parallel Americans with Disabilities Act and Unruh Act claims when neither claim had yet been decided on the merits.

Garcia was ordered to file his response by July 20, 2022. The defendants could optionally file a response supporting or opposing the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction by the same date. The court stayed all other deadlines while resolving that issue. The order did not state that the Unruh Act claim was dismissed or finally decide whether the court would retain jurisdiction over it.