holding district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of “very substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by plaintiffs’ use of federal courts to evade California’s Unruh Act reforms
How later courts described this case
- holding district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of “very substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by plaintiffs’ use of federal courts to evade California’s Unruh Act reforms
- “[I]t is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .’” (quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7811-MWF(MARx) Date: September 18, 2024
Title Oscar Magallanes v. Trudy A. Brown, et al.
Present: The Honorable: MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge
Rita Sanchez Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising
out of an alleged violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights
Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53, and other state law claims alleged by
Plaintiff. The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). See also
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding district courts
may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because
of “very substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by plaintiffs’ use of
federal courts to evade California’s Unruh Act reforms).
This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter
jurisdiction. Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t
is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .’”
(quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW
CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 24-7811-MWF(MARx) Date: September 18, 2024
Title Oscar Magallanes v. Trudy A. Brown, et al.
over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The
Response to the Order to Show Cause shall include (1) the amount of statutory
damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act; and (2) sufficient facts for the Court to
determine whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel meet the definition of a “high-
frequency litigant” as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section
425.55(b)(1) & (2). These facts shall be set forth in declarations signed under
penalty of perjury.
The Response shall be filed on or before OCTOBER 2, 2024. Failure to
timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further
warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court’s
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the
dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.