1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-05907-JST

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 SILVERCREEK YUBA I, LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On July 31, 2021, Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action against Defendants Silvercreek 14 Yuba I, LLC and Altos View LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act 15 (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) in relation to the premises 16 located at 1057, 1059, and 1061 El Monte Ave, Mountain View, California, and the business 17 establishments known as NaturalStart Medicine, Serene Spring Spa, and Mountain View Smile. 18 Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and the Unruh Act, statutory damages under the 19 Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 9. Plaintiff contends that this Court has federal 20 question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and 21 other state law claims. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. 22 Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine 23 Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966). District courts have discretion to decline to exercise 24 supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the 25 claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original 26 jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or 27 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 1 Numerous federal district courts across California have declined to exercise supplemental 2 jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing

(c)(2) 3 & (c)(4). See, e.g., Estrada v. Fiesta III, LLC,

, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) 4 (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim because 5 “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” existed, and stating that the plaintiff may 6 “pursue his Unruh Act claim in state court – the appropriate forum for such claim under these 7 circumstances”); Langer v. Mobeeus, Inc.,

, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020) 8 (similar); Langer v. Deddeh,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) (declining to 9 exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the Unruh Act claim predominated over the ADA 10 claim and the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constituted exceptional 11 circumstances); Theroux v. Oceanside Motel-9, LP,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 12 2019) (similar); Langer v. Petras,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) (similar); 13 Spikes v. All Pro Auto Repair, Inc.,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) 14 (dismissing for these reasons various state law claims including claims for violation of the Unruh 15 Act, California Health and Safety Code Section 19955, negligence per se, and negligence); 16 Rutherford v. Ara Lebanese Grill,

, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) (finding that 17 “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use the federal court system as a loophole to evade 18 California’s pleading requirements”). 19 This Court recently declined jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims in 20 circumstances like those presented here. Arroyo v. Quach, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-08778-JST, ECF 21 No. 21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022). The Court noted that California federal courts have recently 22 experienced a large influx of cases involving a federal claim under the ADA for failure to ensure 23 that businesses are accessible to customers with disabilities, accompanied by a state-law claim 24 under the Unruh Act, which provides statutory damages for the same conduct. The Court noted 25 that the Ninth Circuit had tied this increase in filings largely to California’s recent decision to 26 impose “additional procedural requirements on construction-related accessibility claims” in order 27 to “balance its objectives of allowing monetary relief, avoiding undue burdens on businesses, and 1 Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court continued: 2 The comparative ease of filing these cases in federal courts “has created an end-run around California’s requirements,” because 3 heightened procedural requirements generally do not extend to cases filed in federal courts.

(cleaned up); see also Castillo- 4 Antonio v. Hernandez, No. 19-cv-00672-JCS,

(N.D. Cal. June 28, 2019) (“As district courts within the Ninth 5 Circuit have repeatedly held, state pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims do not apply in federal court 6 because such requirements are procedural in nature and federal courts use federal procedural rules.”). This shift “threatens to 7 substantially thwart California’s carefully crafted reforms in this area and to deprive the state courts of their critical role in 8 effectuating the policies underlying those reforms.” Arroyo, 19 9 F.4th at 1213. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the 10 meaning of § 1367(c)(4). Id. at 1214. The Court in Quach found the same “extraordinary 11 circumstances,” and then determined, after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and 12 comity, that there were compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 13 This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous 14 similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to 15 5 show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 16 Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case. Plaintiff shall file a response to this order to show 17

cause within 21 days of this order. In the response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory Z 18 damages sought in this action. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall also include declarations in 19 their responses which provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the 20 definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & 21 (2). Failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 20, 2022 24 25 JON S. TIGAR nited States District Judge 26 27 28