1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREL SPIKES Case No.: 19cv1591-CAB-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 ALL PRO AUTO REPAIR, INC. a California Corporation; and DOES 1 15 through 10, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17

18 The complaint in this action asserts one claim under federal law for violation of the 19 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), along with claims for violations of California’s 20 Unruh Act, violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 19955, negligence per 21 se, negligence, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The complaint asserts jurisdiction 22 based on the existence of a federal question (the ADA claim), and supplemental jurisdiction 23 over the state claims. 24 Federal courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all 25 claims that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they 26 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 27 Constitution.”

(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, 28 1 district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: (1) it raises 2 a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) it substantially predominates over the claim(s) 3 over which the court has original jurisdiction; (3) the court has dismissed all claims over 4 which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) there are other compelling reasons for declining 5 jurisdiction.

(c). The Supreme Court has identified additional factors that 6 district courts should consider when deciding whether to exercise supplemental 7 jurisdiction, “including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law 8 claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and 9 federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,

(1997). 10 “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law 11 claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by 12 the Gibbs1 values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian 13 Assocs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). A district 14 court need not “articulate why the circumstances of [the] case are exceptional” to dismiss 15 state-law claims pursuant to

(c)(1)-(3). San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. 16 City of L.A.,

, 478–79 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 17 Here, the complaint states only one federal claim, for violation of the ADA, along 18 with four2 separate state law claims. As a result, while the ADA does not entitle a plaintiff 19 to recover damages, the complaint seeks various types of monetary damages, including 20 statutory damages, actual damages, and punitive damages. Meanwhile, the same injunctive 21 relief available under the ADA is also available under the Unruh Act. See Schutza v. 22 Cuddeback,

(S.D. Cal. 2017) (noting that “[i]t is unclear what 23 advantage—other than avoiding state-imposed pleading requirements—Plaintiff gains by 24 being in federal court since his sole remedy under the ADA is injunctive relief, which is 25 26 27 1 United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,

(1966). 2 The complaint includes “claims” for declaratory relief and injunctive relief, which upon closer inspection 28 1 also available under the Unruh Act.”). Thus, the state claims and the issues related thereto 2 substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which appears to be a secondary claim 3 included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather than a necessary (let alone 4 predominant) claim in this lawsuit. See Rutherford v. Ara Lebanese Grill, No. 18-CV- 5 01497-AJB-WVG,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) (declining 6 supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim because Unruh Act claim substantially 7 predominated over ADA claim). 8 In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction. See 9 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966) (holding that comity is a factor 10 to be considered before exercising supplemental jurisdiction). California has a strong 11 interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from abusive litigation and also in 12 preventing its own laws from being misused for unjust purposes. In 2012, in an attempt to 13 deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation, California adopted heightened pleading 14 requirements for disability discrimination lawsuits under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. 15 PRO CODE § 425.503; SB 1186, Chapter 383 § 24 (Cal. 2012). Plaintiff has filed at least 16 two dozen disability discrimination cases in this court over the past year, and an online 17 search of cases filed by “Karel Spikes” in San Diego County Superior Court reveals nine 18 cases filed in 2017. Accordingly, the need for California’s procedural protections appears 19 particularly acute. 20 Finally, “federal courts may properly take measures to discourage forum shopping.” 21 Rutherford v. Econolodge, No. 18CV1471-LAB (JMA),

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 22 Feb. 27, 2019) (citing Hanna v. Plumer,

, 467–68 (1965)); Schutza v. 23 Cuddeback,

(holding that plaintiff who had filed numerous ADA 24

25 26 3 Under the Unruh Act a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination must include in his complaint: (1) an explanation of the specific access barrier or barriers encountered; (2) the way in which the barrier denied 27 the individual full and equal access, or in which it deterred the individual on each particular occasion. (3) the date/s when the claimant encountered the specific barriers. The section also contains additional 28 1 || actions in federal court was engaging in forum shopping “to avoid California’s heightened 2 pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims.”’). “[I]t would be improper to 3 || allow Plaintiff to use the federal court system as a loophole to evade California’s pleading 4 ||requirements.” Rutherford vy. Ara Lebanese Grill,

, at *5. “Therefore, 5 ||as a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial interest in discouraging 6 ||unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction 7 || over Plaintiff's [state law claims].” Schutza v. Cuddleback,

. 8 In sum, because (1) Plaintiff’s state law claims predominate over his federal claim 9 ||under the ADA, and (2) the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute 10 || exceptional circumstances, the Court sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over 11 |}claims two through eight in the complaint. Claims two through eight are DISMISSED 12 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. 13 It is SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: August 26, 2019 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28