Hernandez v. Syncrasy

Background

Gerardo Hernandez sued Syncrasy and Franklin St. RC Apartments LLC over alleged barriers to wheelchair access. He alleged that he visited the defendants’ facilities three times in July and August 2021 and encountered no designated accessible parking, a service counter that was too high, and a self-service beverage dispenser that was too high for him to use from his wheelchair.

Hernandez brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code section 19955(a). The parties conducted a joint site inspection, attended an unsuccessful mediation, and litigated under the Northern District of California’s procedures for ADA cases. Hernandez also filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, but this order did not decide that motion.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims together with federal claims. The court acknowledged that Hernandez’s state-law claims were related to his ADA claim, but held that it could decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances if fairness, respect for state authority, judicial economy, and convenience provided compelling reasons to do so.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions involving “high-frequency” litigants asserting California Unruh Act claims together with ADA claims. California defines a high-frequency litigant as a plaintiff who filed at least 10 complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations during the 12 months before the current complaint. The opinion states that Hernandez had filed 30 ADA cases.

The court concluded that exceptional circumstances existed because retaining the Unruh Act claim could allow high-frequency litigants to avoid California rules governing those claims. The court rejected Hernandez’s argument that his litigation expenses required keeping the state claims in federal court. It explained that hiring an expert was not required by the court’s ADA procedures, that any award of those expenses under the ADA would be discretionary, and that Hernandez could still seek expenses and costs if he continued with the ADA claim.

The court also rejected the argument that the case had progressed too far to decline jurisdiction. It had not ruled on the ADA claim’s merits, and the parties had completed only the required inspection, settlement conference, and mediation. The court found that fairness and respect for California’s rules outweighed the loss of convenience from requiring Hernandez to pursue the state-law claims in state court.

Ruling

The court dismissed Hernandez’s state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. The order did not decide the merits of Hernandez’s ADA claim. It required Hernandez to notify the court by February 3, 2023, whether he intended to move forward with that claim.