Sepulveda v. Cai
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-06471
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sepulveda v. Cai, Judge Corley dismissed Sepulveda’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice because exceptional circumstances justified declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Richard Sepulveda’s California Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; his Americans with Disabilities Act claim was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
Richard Sepulveda sued David Cai and other defendants over alleged accessibility barriers at the Lake Merritt Wash House. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act, seeking an injunction and statutory damages.
The defendants asked the court not to hear the state-law Unruh Act claim. The court agreed that exceptional circumstances justified declining supplemental jurisdiction, citing Sepulveda’s status as a high-frequency litigant and California’s special procedural rules for such claims.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court. The court said Sepulveda could continue pursuing his Americans with Disabilities Act claim in federal court, and ordered the parties to continue with the required procedures.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Cai · No. 3:22-cv-06471
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
Richard Sepulveda brought a disability-access action concerning alleged architectural barriers at the Lake Merritt Wash House, which the opinion says is owned and operated by David Cai, Diana Owyang, Cassandra Owyang, T. Owyang, and C.S. Yee. Sepulveda alleged that he visited the business three times in 2022 for laundry services, uses a walker for mobility, and encountered or was informed about inaccessible restrooms and parking spaces. He sought an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California’s Unruh Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss only the Unruh Act claim and asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction—federal authority to hear a related state-law claim—and allow the claim to be pursued in state court.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions holding that California’s heightened procedural requirements for Unruh Act claims brought by “high-frequency litigants” can create exceptional circumstances supporting the refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The court noted that Sepulveda conceded he was a high-frequency litigant and had filed 30 lawsuits in the district in 2022. The court also observed that the state-law claims were important to the lawsuit because Sepulveda sought $12,000 in Unruh Act statutory damages, which he could not recover under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court concluded that the circumstances were exceptional and that the relevant considerations—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts—supported declining supplemental jurisdiction. It rejected Sepulveda’s arguments concerning the availability of injunctive relief, the possibility of obtaining damages through a default judgment, his litigation history, his proximity to the businesses, and his stated concern about improving disability access. The court emphasized that the case was at an early stage and that its merits had not yet been litigated.
Ruling
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Sepulveda’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling that claim in state court. The court did not dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim; it stated that Sepulveda could continue pursuing that claim in federal court. The court also ordered the parties to continue with the General Order 56 procedures and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 8.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.