Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2022

Sepulveda v. Gazali

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:22-cv-01899
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Sepulveda v. Gazall, Judge Chhabria ordered Sepulveda to explain why the court should keep his Unruh Act claim or face dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Who this affects

Richard Sepulveda is required to respond within 21 days or the action will be dismissed with prejudice; the order concerns his California Unruh Act claim and the defendants named in the action.

What happened

In Sepulveda v. Gazall, Richard Sepulveda brought federal and state-law claims, including a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court said that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings an Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, that may be an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to decline jurisdiction over the state-law claim. The court ordered Sepulveda to explain why it should continue exercising jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.

Judge Vince Chhabria gave Sepulveda 21 days to respond. The order did not yet dismiss the action, but it stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sepulveda v. Gazali · No. 3:22-cv-01899
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Aug. 12, 2022

Background

The opinion is an order requiring Richard Sepulveda to show cause—that is, to explain why the court should take a particular action. The order concerns Sepulveda’s California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim, which he asserted in federal court alongside a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Court’s analysis

The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), which allows a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. It stated that when a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, that situation will typically qualify as an exceptional circumstance justifying dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. The court cited Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California authority in support of that statement.

Order

The court ordered Sepulveda to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Sepulveda must respond within 21 days of the order. The court stated that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order itself does not state that the action or the Unruh Act claim was dismissed at that time. The order was signed by United States District Judge Vince Chhabria.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.