Whitaker v. Tashi VN Grill, Inc

Background

Brian Whitaker sued Tashi VN Grill, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court issued an order to show cause, which requires a party to explain why the court should not take a proposed action. The order did not finally resolve the claims.

Supplemental jurisdiction

The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain related state-law claims alongside federal claims. Citing Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California decisions, the court stated that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings an Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an ADA claim, that situation will typically be an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the state-law claim. The court ordered Whitaker to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

The court also ordered Whitaker to state whether, if the federal court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, he would prefer to dismiss the ADA claim and pursue both claims in state court.

Article III standing and declarations

The court separately questioned whether Whitaker has Article III standing to pursue the ADA claim. Standing is the required connection between a plaintiff and the alleged injury that allows a federal court to hear the case. The court ordered both Whitaker and his counsel to submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury within 21 days.

Whitaker’s declaration must provide support for the allegations that he intends to return to the defendant’s establishment and must give detailed support for the allegation that he personally visited it. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation counsel conducted to confirm that Whitaker visited the establishment and intends to return.

Possible discovery and hearing

If the declarations are facially adequate, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional discovery is information gathering focused on whether the court has authority to hear the case. The permitted subjects would be 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 truth of the jurisdictional allegations.

Ruling and case status

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Whitaker and his counsel to respond to the order to show cause within 21 days. The court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. The court warned that failure to respond and failure to appear in person would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court had already dismissed the action, decided standing, or decided whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.