Alia Ashfaq v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc.

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM by Judge Cormac J. Carney. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 2/22/2023. (twdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 23-00216-CJC (DFMx)

Date: February 8, 2023

Title: ALIA ASHFAQ V. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rolls Royce Paschal
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT CLAIM
On February 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil
Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff
contends that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim. (Id.)
Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.”
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or
complex issue of State law, (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).
A number of federal district courts across California have declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing
28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d
1025, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because
(1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 23-00216-CJC (DFMx)

Date: February 8, 2023
Page 2

federal claim” and, (2) because “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal
court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements.”). And the Ninth Circuit
has found “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4)
when a plaintiff would be allowed to circumvent and render ineffectual California’s
“procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants” by filing an
Unruh Act claim in federal court and invoking the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court therefore orders
Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Arroyo.
Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by February 22, 2023.
In her response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages she seeks to
recover. Plaintiff and her counsel shall also include declarations in their responses which
provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a
“high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code
§§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk RRP