Gastelum v. TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01230-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. JURISDICTION 14 TC HERITAGE INN 2 OF (Docs. 33, 34) BAKERSFIELD LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 1, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Fernando Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) to 18 show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 19 State law claims. (Doc. 33). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s response (Doc. 34) to its 20 order to show cause (Defendant TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC, was not required to and 21 did not answer either Plaintiff’s response or the Court’s order). Having considered Plaintiff’s 22 response and the Court’s file, the undersigned finds this matter suitable for decision without oral 23 argument. See Local Rule 230(g). Due to the unique circumstances and procedural posture of 24 this case, and for the reasons further set forth herein, the Court agrees to retain supplemental 25 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claim. 26 Background and Discussion 27 On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 28 against Defendant TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC. (Doc. 1). On February 23, 2022, the 1 Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 13), finding Plaintiff had not adequately 2 pleaded facts establishing that he had standing to assert a claim under the Americans with 3 Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). Based on Plaintiff’s opposition brief, it appeared to the Court 4 he could cure the pleading deficiencies, and, thus, leave to amend was granted. 5 On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 6 (Doc. 15). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the FAC suffered from similar 7 pleading deficiencies with respect to Plaintiff’s standing to assert an ADA claim. (Doc. 16). 8 Defendant additionally argued that Plaintiff’s claim for statutory damages under California’s 9 Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California Civil Code §§ 51-53, should be dismissed on 10 the grounds that one of the same Ninth Circuit decisions cited in this Court’s show cause order 11 (Arroyo, infra) stands for the proposition that “the monetary component of an Unruh Act claim 12 and the heightened pleading requirements under state law justify declining supplemental 13 jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.” (Doc. 16 at 27). 14 On January 25, 2023, the Court entered an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss 15 the FAC. (Doc. 27). The Court found Plaintiff adequately alleged standing to assert an ADA 16 claim and that “judicial economy and convenience” weighed in favor of retaining jurisdiction 17 over the Unruh Act claim. (Id. at 19-20). 18 Significantly, the parties’ briefing of Defendant’s second motion to dismiss was complete 19 months before the Ninth Circuit published its opinion in Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) 20 (holding the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh 21 Act and ADA case). In Vo, the Court noted California has imposed heightened pleading 22 requirements for certain Unruh Act claims to address the concern that high-frequency litigants 23 may be using the statute to obtain monetary relief for themselves without accompanying 24 adjustments to locations to assure accessibility to others. Id. at 1170. See Cal. Gov. Code § 25 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). The Court also noted that “concerns about 26 comity and fairness” implicated by permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural 27 requirements by bringing their claims in federal court” constituted exceptional circumstances 28 sufficient to warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim. Vo, 49 F.4th 1 | 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue state law 2 | damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements. See generally, Arroyo, 19 3 | F.4th at 1211-12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72. 4 Notwithstanding Vo, in light of the unique circumstances and posture of this case, 5 | retaining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is warranted. The parties and 6 | the Court already have invested significant time and resources resolving two fully briefed motions 7 | to dismiss and the case has been pending for almost two years. E.g., Arroyo v. Rojas, 19 F.4th 8 | 1202, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 2021) (“If the district court had declined supplemental jurisdiction over 9 | Arroyo's Unruh Act claim at the outset of the litigation, it might then still have been possible to 10 | further California's interest in cabining Unruh Act damages claims through the imposition of 11 | heightened pleading requirements and a substantial up-front filing fee.”’). 12 Conclusion and Order 13 For forgoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The Court’s June 1, 2023, order to show cause (Doc. 33) is DISCHARGED; 15 2. The Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claim. 16 | IT IS □□ ORDERED. 'T | Dated: _ July 26, 2023 | Wr bo 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28