Whitaker v. Cancha LLC
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-08772
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Whitaker v. Cancha LLC: Judge Illston ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should not decline jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim.
Brian Whitaker was required to submit a written explanation by October 17, 2022. Cancha LLC remained in default, and the order did not determine the ultimate outcome of the case or the Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Cancha LLC, the defendant did not respond to the complaint, and the clerk entered default against it. Whitaker had not yet asked for a default judgment.
The court questioned whether it should continue hearing Whitaker’s state-law claim under California’s Unruh Act along with the federal claims. It cited decisions involving similar claims and high-frequency plaintiffs, but it did not decide the jurisdiction issue in this order.
Judge Susan Illston ordered the plaintiff to explain in writing by 5 p.m. on October 17, 2022, why the court should not decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The opinion refers to the plaintiff as “Johnson” in parts of the order, although the caption identifies him as Brian Whitaker.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Cancha LLC · No. 3:21-cv-08772
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker filed this case against Cancha LLC. The opinion states that Cancha did not respond to the complaint. Whitaker moved for entry of default on May 5, 2022, and the clerk entered default on June 15, 2022. Whitaker had not yet moved for default judgment.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause—meaning to explain in writing—why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case. The court cited Vo v. Choi, which affirmed declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim after entry of default but before default judgment, and Arroyo v. Rosas.
The court set a written-response deadline of 5 p.m. on October 17, 2022. This order did not grant or deny default judgment and did not finally decide whether the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The opinion says the court took judicial notice that “Johnson” is a high-frequency plaintiff, and it repeatedly refers to “Johnson,” although the caption identifies the plaintiff as Brian Whitaker. The text does not explain that discrepancy.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.