Hernandez v. Syncrasy
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-09212
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hernandez v. Syncrasy, Judge Breyer ordered a response explaining why the court should keep the state claim, warning that failure could end the case.
Gerardo Hernandez and Syncrasy and the other defendants; the order specifically requires Hernandez to respond and warns that the action will be dismissed with prejudice if he does not.
What happened
Gerardo Hernandez sued Syncrasy and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. He seeks an order requiring action, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should continue hearing the Unruh Act claim along with the federal disability claim. It ordered Hernandez to explain why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the state-law claim in the same case as the federal claim.
Judge Charles R. Breyer gave Hernandez 21 days to respond. The order says that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Syncrasy · No. 3:21-cv-09212
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
Gerardo Hernandez brought claims against Syncrasy and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. The opinion says he seeks injunctive relief, equitable and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Jurisdictional issue
The court issued an order to show cause. In this context, that means the court required the plaintiff to explain why a particular action should not be taken. The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a state-law claim connected to a federal claim—over Hernandez’s Unruh Act claim.
The court cited decisions stating that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings a California Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an ADA claim, that circumstance will typically justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court therefore ordered Hernandez to explain why it should continue hearing that claim.
Required response and stated consequence
Hernandez 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 opinion does not state that the court had already dismissed the case or decide the merits of either claim.
Disposition
This is an order requiring a response, not a final merits ruling. The court did not decide whether Hernandez proved an ADA or Unruh Act violation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.