UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-09999-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING UNRUH ACT v. CLAIM

NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET AND CAFE Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25 INC, Defendant.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas,

, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021). Although the case is further along than usual when the Court dismisses Unruh Act claims in ADA access cases, the plaintiff filed a boilerplate response to the Order to Show Cause, so he has waived any arguments specific to this case. Overall, concerns of judicial economy, convenience, fairness to litigants, and comity do not favor retaining jurisdiction. See

. And the facts of the case—“a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to circumvent California’s procedural barriers to such suits—present the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by section 1367(c)(4)” to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022). Because the Court has dismissed the Unruh Act claim, the plaintiff has additionally asked that the Court dismiss the ADA claim without prejudice so that both claims can be litigated in a single forum. The Court is inclined to grant that request, but the defendant may file an objection within 4 days. If it does not respond, the ADA claim will be dismissed without prejudice. // // // IT ISSO ORDERED. Dated: August 17, 2022 Koo. 8 me _. VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge