Sepulveda v. Kobaree
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:23-cv-02368
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Sepulveda v. Kobaree, Judge Seeborg granted the partial motion to dismiss and dismissed Sepulveda’s state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court.
Richard Sepulveda’s state-law disability-access claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court; the order addressed the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. Kobaree, Richard Sepulveda sued the owners and operators of Sky Market under federal and state disability-access laws. He alleged that physical conditions at the Oakland business denied him full and equal access.
The defendants asked the court not to hear Sepulveda’s state-law claims together with his federal claims. They argued that California’s special filing and pleading rules for frequent disability-access lawsuits created exceptional circumstances. Sepulveda did not oppose the motion.
The court granted the partial motion to dismiss. Judge Seeborg dismissed Sepulveda’s state-law claims—claims 2 through 4—without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Kobaree · No. 3:23-cv-02368
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
Richard Sepulveda brought a disability-discrimination lawsuit under federal and state law against the owners and operators of Sky Market. He alleged that he has lumbar disc disease and degenerative arthritis, uses a walker, and is limited in the use of his legs. He claimed that the market did not comply with accessibility laws and denied him full and equal access.
The defendants moved to dismiss Sepulveda’s state-law claims. They asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, which is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. Sepulveda did not file an opposition.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions holding that federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over certain California disability-access claims brought with claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court explained that California has enacted heightened pleading requirements and a substantial up-front filing fee for high-frequency disability-access litigants in state court. Allowing these claims to proceed in federal court could undermine California’s reforms and reduce the role of state courts in enforcing those policies.
The court found exceptional circumstances supporting the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Sepulveda acknowledged that he was a high-frequency litigant. Although his complaint appeared to meet some of California’s pleading requirements in a cursory way, the court stated that it was unclear whether the allegations would satisfy a California court. The court also noted that filing in federal court allowed him to avoid California’s increased filing fee. Because the case was at an early stage and its merits had not been litigated, the court concluded that dismissal served judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state-court authority.
The court separately addressed Sepulveda’s claim under California Health and Safety Code section 19955. Although that claim was not expressly listed among the provisions subject to the same enhanced requirements, the court found persuasive decisions concluding that section 19955 claims involving accessibility at public accommodations are also construction-related accessibility claims subject to those requirements. The court therefore concluded that this claim should also be dismissed.
Disposition
The court granted the partial motion to dismiss. It dismissed Sepulveda’s state-law claims, claims 2 through 4 of the complaint, without prejudice to refiling those claims in state court. The order was signed by Richard Seeborg, Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.