1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY JACKSON, Case No.: 21-cv-240-CAB-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIM 14 SOLO GROUP MANAGEMENT INC. 15 dba BENCOTTO ITALIAN KITCHEN; 16 JMAN AT THE Q, L.P., and DOES 1-10, 17 inclusive 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 a claim for violation of California’s 22 Unruh Act. The complaint asserts jurisdiction based on the existence of a federal question 23 (the ADA claim), and supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim. 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. 16 v. City of L.A.,

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

(S.D. Cal. 2017) 22 (noting that “[i]t is unclear what advantage—other than avoiding state-imposed pleading 23 requirements—Plaintiff gains by being in federal court since his sole remedy under the 24 ADA is injunctive relief, which is also available under the Unruh Act.”). Thus, the state 25 claim and the issues related thereto substantially predominate over the ADA claim, which 26 27 28 1 appears to be a secondary claim included to justify filing the complaint in this Court, rather 2 than a necessary (let alone predominant) claim in this lawsuit. See Rutherford v. Ara 3 Lebanese Grill, No. 18-CV-01497-AJB-WVG,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4 6, 2019) (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claim because Unruh Act 5 claim substantially predominated over ADA claim). 6 In addition, the important interest of comity supports declining jurisdiction. See 7 United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966) (holding that comity is a factor 8 to be considered before exercising supplemental jurisdiction). California has a strong 9 interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from abusive litigation and also in 10 preventing its own laws from being misused for unjust purposes. In 2012, in an attempt to 11 deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation, California adopted heightened pleading 12 requirements for disability discrimination lawsuits under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. 13 Proc. Code § 425.502; SB 1186, Chapter 383 § 24 (Ca. 2012). Over the last three months, 14 Plaintiff has filed over two dozen disability discrimination cases in this court in the past 15 two years, and currently has five disability discrimination cases pending in this court. 16 Accordingly, the need for California’s procedural protections appears particularly acute. 17 Finally, “federal courts may properly take measures to discourage forum shopping.” 18 Rutherford v. Econolodge, No. 18CV1471-LAB (JMA),

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 19 Feb. 27, 2019) (citing Hanna v. Plumer,

, 467–68 (1965)); Schutza v. 20 Cuddeback,

(holding that plaintiff who had filed numerous ADA 21 actions in federal court was engaging in forum shopping “to avoid California’s heightened 22 pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims.”). “[I]t would be improper to 23 allow Plaintiff to use the federal court system as a loophole to evade California’s pleading 24

25 26 2 Under the Unruh Act a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination must include in her 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 |/requirements.” Rutherford v. Ara Lebanese Grill,

, at *5. “Therefore, 2 ||as a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial interest in discouraging 3 ||unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction 4 || over Plaintiffs [state law claims].” Schutza v. Cuddeback,

. 5 In sum, because (1) Plaintiffs state law claim predominates over her federal claim 6 || under the ADA, and (2) the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constitute 7 ||exceptional circumstances, the Court sua sponte declines supplemental jurisdiction over 8 ||claim two in the complaint. Plaintiff's second claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights 9 || Act is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling in state court. 10 It is SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: February 11, 2021 € 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28