1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN MEGGS, Individually, Case No.: 19cv2001-CAB-AHG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS 14 STANLEY S. PENN, TRUSTEE of the Stanley S. Penn Separate Property Trust 15 dated January 26, 2017; STANLEY S. 16 PENN, Individually; LUCKY LADY SAN DIEGO, INC., a California 17 corporation, 18 Defendants. 19

20 The complaint in this action asserts one claim under federal law for violation of the 21 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), along with claims for violations of California’s 22 Disabled Person Act (Civil Code §54) and Unruh Act (Civil Code §51). The complaint 23 asserts jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question (the ADA claim), and 24 supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. 25 Federal courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over all 26 claims that are “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they 27 form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 28 1 Constitution.”

(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, 2 district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if: (1) it raises 3 a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) it substantially predominates over the claim(s) 4 over which the court has original jurisdiction; (3) the court has dismissed all claims over 5 which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) there are other compelling reasons for declining 6 jurisdiction.

(c). The Supreme Court has identified additional factors that 7 district courts should consider when deciding whether to exercise supplemental 8 jurisdiction, “including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law 9 claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and 10 federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,

(1997). 11 “While discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law 12 claims is triggered by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by 13 the Gibbs1 values ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian 14 Assocs., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (citations omitted). A district 15 court need not “articulate why the circumstances of [the] case are exceptional” to dismiss 16 state-law claims pursuant to

(c)(1)-(3). San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. 17 City of L.A.,

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

(S.D. Cal. 2017) 23 (noting that “[i]t is unclear what advantage—other than avoiding state-imposed pleading 24 requirements—Plaintiff gains by being in federal court since his sole remedy under the 25 ADA is injunctive relief, which is also available under the Unruh Act.”). Thus, the state 26 27 28 1 claims and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which 2 appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather 3 than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit. See Rutherford v. Ara 4 Lebanese Grill, No. 18-CV-01497-AJB-WVG,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5 6, 2019) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim because Unruh Act 6 claim substantially predominated over ADA claim). 7 In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction. See 8 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966) (holding that comity is a factor 9 to be considered before exercising supplemental jurisdiction). California has a strong 10 interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from abusive litigation and also in 11 preventing its own laws from being misused for unjust purposes. In 2012, in an attempt to 12 deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation, California adopted heightened pleading 13 requirements for disability discrimination lawsuits under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. 14 PRO CODE § 425.502; SB 1186, Chapter 383 § 24 (Cal. 2012). Accordingly, the need for 15 California’s procedural protections appears acute. 16 Finally, “federal courts may properly take measures to discourage forum shopping.” 17 Rutherford v. Econolodge, No. 18CV1471-LAB (JMA),

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 18 Feb. 27, 2019) (citing Hanna v. Plumer,

, 467–68 (1965)); Schutza v. 19 Cuddeback,

(holding that plaintiff who had filed numerous ADA 20 actions in federal court was engaging in forum shopping “to avoid California’s heightened 21 pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims.”). “[I]t would be improper to 22 allow Plaintiff to use the federal court system as a loophole to evade California’s pleading 23 requirements.” Rutherford v. Ara Lebanese Grill,

, at *5. “Therefore, 24

25 26 2 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 a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial interest in discouraging 2 ||unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction 3 || over Plaintiff's [state law claims].” Schutza v. Cuddleback,

. 4 In sum, because (1) Plaintiffs state law claims predominate over his federal claim 5 under the ADA, and (2) the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute 6 ||exceptional circumstances, the Court sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over 7 || counts two and three in the complaint. Counts two and three are DISMISSED WITHOUT 8 || PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. 9 It is SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 28, 2019 € □ 11 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28