Whitaker v. Shahzad, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-00114
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Shahzad, Inc., Judge Tigar ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should keep his state-law claim, warning that nonresponse would lead to dismissal.
Brian Whitaker, Shahzad, Inc., and Whitaker’s counsel; the order specifically required Whitaker and his counsel to respond and provide declarations.
What happened
Brian Whitaker sued Shahzad, Inc., alleging that the Shalimar Restaurant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring accessibility, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should continue hearing Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim alongside his federal disability claim. It ordered Whitaker to explain why the court should not decline to hear that state-law claim and to identify the statutory damages he seeks.
Judge Jon S. Tigar also ordered Whitaker and his lawyer to provide declarations addressing whether they qualify as “high-frequency litigants” under California law. The court warned that failing to submit a written response within 14 days would result in dismissal of the complaint; the opinion itself does not report that a dismissal had yet occurred.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Shahzad, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-00114
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Brian Whitaker brought this action against Shahzad, Inc., concerning the Shalimar Restaurant in Fremont, California. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). Whitaker seeks injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He asserted federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Court’s analysis
Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims connected to claims within its original jurisdiction. The court explained that federal law permits it to decline supplemental jurisdiction in specified circumstances, including when a state-law claim raises exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons support declining jurisdiction.
The court relied on decisions from federal courts in California, including a prior related proceeding, that declined to hear Unruh Act claims accompanying ADA accessibility claims. Those decisions discussed the increase in such combined filings and the concern that federal litigation could avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims. The court concluded that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Whitaker had to respond within 14 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Whitaker and his counsel also had to provide declarations containing the facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The court stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The opinion does not state that the complaint was dismissed at that point.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.