Marquise Bailey v. Joseph Kling et al
Filing
10
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court ORDERS Plaintiff within fourteen days after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act Claim under Section 1367(c)(4). SEE ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. (jgr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.: 2:22-cv-05224-SB-PLA
Title:
Date:
July 29, 2022
Marquise Bailey v. Joseph Kling et al.
Present: The Honorable
STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR., U.S. District Judge
Jennifer Graciano
Deputy Clerk
N/A
Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
N/A
N/A
Proceedings:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Marquise Bailey, who requires the use of a wheelchair when
traveling in public, filed this suit alleging that Defendant’s facilities impose
physical barriers that impede his access, in violation of, inter alia, the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Dkt. No. 1.
Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the
Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 367(a). However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of
discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise
jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. v.
Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). This discretion is codified in Section 1367(c):
The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over a claim under subsection (a) if—
(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
Initials of Deputy Clerk JGR
(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction, or
(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling
reasons for declining jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
In a recent published decision, the Ninth Circuit explained that the
California Legislature’s 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act, which were
intended to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants
bringing construction-related claims, had led to a surge of filings in federal courts
of ADA cases seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Arroyo v. Rosas,
19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that
this shift in filings from state courts to federal courts had circumvented the state
legislature’s goals and “rendered [the new statutory requirements] largely
toothless, because they can now be readily evaded.” Id. at 1213. The court
explained that “retention of supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act
claims threatens to substantially thwart California’s carefully crafted reforms in
this area and to deprive the state courts of their critical role in effectuating the
policies underlying those reforms.” Id. Thus, the court held that these
circumstances are “exceptional” within the meaning of Section 1367(c)(4) and
therefore potentially justified declining supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See id. (“The district court did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that this extraordinary situation threatens unusually significant
damage to federal-state comity and presents ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the
meaning of § 1367(c)(4).”). However, because the district court had waited to
decline supplemental jurisdiction until after granting summary judgment on the
plaintiff’s ADA claim, thereby effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction, holding
that it had waited too long to invoke the comity interest. Id. at 1215–17.
Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and this Court has not
yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims. This appears to
be a case in which the Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests
identified in Arroyo. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff within 14 days
after entry of this Order to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2
Initials of Deputy Clerk JGR
without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under Section 1367(c)(4). Plaintiff’s
response must identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover
and must be supported by declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing
all facts necessary for the Court to determine if Plaintiff and his counsel satisfy the
definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
§ 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If Plaintiff fails to file a response within 14 days after entry of
this Order, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his
Unruh Act claim, and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without
prejudice without further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (12/02)
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3
Initials of Deputy Clerk JGR
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?