Gilbert v. Signature Services ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT, No. 2:22-cv-1266 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SIGNATURE SERVICES dba FARMERS MARKETPLACE; NF STADIUM, LLC, 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 This civil action has been directly assigned to the undersigned pursuant to the Local 19 Rules, Appendix A(m). Review of plaintiff’s complaint finds that it alleges a federal claim for 20 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as California state law claims for 21 violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Health and Safety Code. (Compl. (ECF 22 No. 1) at 2.) The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. A district court 23 may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional 24 circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). 25 “When a ‘high-frequency’ litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court 26 with an ADA claim, it may constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the 27 Unruh Act claim.” Whitaker v. Mission Edge Café, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-9362 CRB, 2022 WL 28 7127878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022). “Such situations implicate strong federal–state comity 1 | concerns because ‘high-frequency’ litigants can evade heightened California-law rules by filing 2 | Unruh Act claims with ADA claims in federal court.” SCOTT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, KUMA 3 | KUMALLC, Defendant., Case No. 22-cv-1368 CRB, 2022 WL 17418977, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4 5, 2022). 5 Plaintiff, therefore, will be ordered to show cause as to why this Court should not find that 6 | “compelling reasons exist for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act 7 | claim.” Brooke v. Sarodia Suncity LLC, Case No. EDCV 22-1374 JGB (SPx), 2022 WL 8 17363913, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022). See generally Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1172 (9th 9 | Cir. 2022) (“we see no reason to hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining 10 || there were compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.”); MIGUEL 11 SOTO, Plaintiff, v. KEN YOUNG; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, CV 11-6874 RSWL SKx, 12 | 2022 WL 17222277, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2022) (‘exceptional circumstances’ and 13 | ‘compelling reasons’ exist in this case to support the Court’s decision to decline to exercise 14 | supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and other state law claims”); Whitaker v. 15 | Jeong, Case No. 4:1°-cv-1262 YGR, 2022 WL 6837724, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022) (“the 16 | Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist that justify declining jurisdiction over the Unruh 17 | Act claim”); Zendejas v. Alexene LLC, Case No. 1:1°-cv-8249 MEME (JDEx), 2022 WL 18 | 17190269, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2022) (“Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental 19 | jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.”). 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of the date of this 21 | order plaintiff shall show cause in writing as to why the Court should not decline to exercise 22 || supplemental jurisdiction over the complaint’s state law claims. 23 | Dated: January 23, 2023 25 6 -BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 | DLB:6 8 DB/orders/orders.consent/gilbert1266.osc.unruh