1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENDRIK BLOCK, Case No. 1:24-cv-0812 JLT SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, 14 ARSH & JOT LLC, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 15 Defendant. DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 16 (Docs. 8, 13) 17 18 Hendrik Block seeks default judgment against Arsh & Jot LLC, for violating Title III of 19 the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (See Docs. 1, 8.) 20 For the reasons set forth below, the motion for default judgment is granted in part. The Court 21 finds default judgment is appropriate for the claim arising under the ADA but declines to exercise 22 supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses the claims arising under state law without prejudice. 23 I. Relevant Background 24 Block reports he “is substantially limited in his ability to walk, and must use a cane, 25 walker, wheelchair or electric scooter for mobility.” (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 8.) He asserts he visited the 26 facility known as “1 Stop Liquor” to purchase water and snacks on November 30 and December 27 6, 2023. (Id., ¶ 10.) Block alleges he “personally encountered barriers (both physical and 28 intangible)” at 1 Stop Liquor that interfered with his ability to use and enjoy the services. (Id. at 1 2, ¶ 10.) Specifically, Block asserts that “[i]t was difficult … to locate the designated accessible 2 parking” in the parking lot, because “[t]he accessible parking lacks signage and proper pavement 3 markings, and the existing pavement markings are extremely faded.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 10.) Block 4 contends he tripped “and almost fell” over a loose mat at the entrance during his November visit. 5 (Id.) Further, Block reports that the aisles “lack sufficient clear width and contain 6 missing/damaged floor tiles that create excessive slopes and height changes,” which caused 7 difficulty when he used a cane in November 2023 and a wheelchair in December 2023. (Id.) 8 Block reports he is a resident of California and “regularly travels to the area” where 1 9 Stop Liquor is located. (Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 10.) Block asserts that he “was, and continues to be, 10 deterred from visiting” 1 Stop Liquor because he knows the “goods, services, facilities, 11 privileges, advantages, and accommodations were and are unavailable to [him] due to [his] 12 physical disabilities.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 12.) According to Block, he will return to 1 Stop Liquor “once 13 the barriers are removed” because he “enjoys the goods and services offered.” (Id.) 14 On July 12, 2024, Block initiated this action by filing a complaint Arsh & Jot LLC, 15 alleging: (1) violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, (2) violations of 16 California’s Unruh Act, and (3) denial of full and equal access to public facilities under 17 California’s Health and Safety Code. (Doc. 1 at 4-8.) Block asserted the defendant “possessed 18 and enjoyed sufficient control and authority” to remove the barriers and ensure 1 Stop Liquor 19 complied with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines and/or the 2010 ADA Standards for 20 Accessible Design. (Id. at 4, ¶ 14.) In addition, Block contends the defendant has “the financial 21 resources to remove the [] barriers … without much difficulty or expense[], and make the Facility 22 accessible.” (Id. at 3, ¶ 13.) 23 Block served Arsh & Jot LLC with the summons and complaint on August 18, 2023. 24 (Doc. 4.) After the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, Block requested the Court enter 25 default. (Doc. 5.) The Clerk of Court entered default on September 10, 2024. (Doc. 5.) Block 26 now seeks default judgment, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory damages under 27 the Unruh Act, attorneys’ fees, and costs.1 (Doc. 8.)

28 1 Block does not seek default judgment over his claim arising under the California Health and Safety Code. 1 II. Findings and Recommendations 2 As an initial matter, the magistrate judge determined the Court has original jurisdiction 3 over the action pursuant to

, based upon Block’s claim for violations of the 4 ADA. (Doc. 13 at 6.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted that “the Court may exert 5 supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to

, over [the] related state law claims under 6 the Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq.” (Id.) 7 The magistrate judge evaluated the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. 8 McCool,

(9th Cir. 1986), and found the factors weighed in favor of granting 9 the motion for default judgment. (Doc. 13.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found default 10 judgment was appropriate for Block’s claim arising under the ADA, and recommended the 11 requested injunctive relief be granted. (Id. at 9-18.) The magistrate judge also found default 12 judgment was appropriate for the claim arising under the Unruh Act, and recommended awarding 13 statutory damages in the amount of $4,000.00. (Id. at 15, 18.) Finally, the magistrate judge 14 recommended Block be awarded attorneys’ fees in the modified amount of $1,562.50 and 15 litigation expenses and costs in the amount of $765.75, for a total of $2,328.25. (Id. at 18-22.) 16 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff, who mailed a copy to 17 Defendant. (Doc. 14.) The Court informed the parties that any objections must be filed within 18 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 13 at 22.) In addition, the Court advised the parties that the 19 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 20 (Id. at 23, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 21

(9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so expired. 22 III. Supplemental Jurisdiction 23 While noting the Court could take supplemental jurisdiction, the magistrate judge did not 24 make any findings as to whether the Court should exercise jurisdiction over Block’s claims 25 arising under state law, or whether exceptional circumstances exist to decline jurisdiction. As the 26 magistrate judge observed, a court that has original jurisdiction over a civil action “shall have 27 supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within 28 such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of 1 the United States Constitution.”

(a). State claims are part of the same case or 2 controversy as federal claims “when they derive from a common nucleus of operative fact and are 3 such that a plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.” Kuba v. 4 1-A Agric. Assoc.,

(9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks, citation 5 omitted). Notably, the Ninth Circuit concluded ADA and Unruh Act claims that derive from a 6 common nucleus of facts “form part of the ‘same case or controversy/ for purposes of § 1367(a).” 7 Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). 8 Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right” and district 9 courts “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” 10 City of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons,

(1997) (internal quotation marks, 11 citations omitted). A district court may “decline supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” if:

12 (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over 13 which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) 14 in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. 15 16

(c). This provision is “a codification of the principles of economy, convenience, 17 fairness, and comity that underlie the Supreme Court’s earlier jurisprudence concerning pendent 18 jurisdiction.” Whitaker v. Mac,

, 1113 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Int’l Coll. of 19 Surgeons,

; see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966) 20 (identifying the following as relevant factors: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 21 comity, which together are the “Gibbs values”). 22 The Ninth Circuit does not require an “explanation for a district court’s reasons [for 23 declining supplemental jurisdiction] when the district court acts under the first three provisions.” 24 San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1998). However, the 25 Court is required to identify why circumstances may be “exceptional” when declining jurisdiction 26 under Section 1367(c)(4). Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). “A district 27 court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim is reviewed for abuse 28 of discretion.” Vo v. Choi,

, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2022). 1 A. Jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4) 2 A court’s inquiry as to whether decline jurisdiction under Section 1367(c)(4) involves a 3 two-part inquiry. Arroyo,

. First, the Court must identify “why the circumstances 4 of the case are exceptional within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4).” Id. (citation omitted); see also 5 San Pedro Hotel,

. Second, to evaluate if “there are ‘compelling reasons for 6 declining jurisdiction’ in a given case, the court should consider what ‘best serves the principles 7 of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity which underlie the pendent jurisdiction doctrine’ 8 articulated in Gibbs.” Arroyo,

(citing Int'l Coll. of Surgeons,

). 9 These “inquiries are not particularly burdensome.”

(citation omitted.) 10 1. Exceptional circumstances 11 Significantly, “California adopted heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act 12 accessibility claims in an attempt to deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation” in 2012. 13 Machowski v. Auburndale Props.,

, 779 (C.D. Cal. 2021); see also Vo,

at 1170 (noting the state “imposed heightened pleading requirements” following the abuse of 15 remedies under the Unruh Act). The state adopted further restrictions in 2015, after the 16 heightened pleading requirements alone “did not substantially reduce vexatious filings.”

17 (citing

). The state targeted “high-frequency litigants,” which were 18 defined as plaintiffs who “filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility 19 violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint 20 alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1). The 21 Court’s review of its records indicates that Block may be subject to the heightened pleading and 22 procedural standards that now apply to the high-frequency litigants.2 23 Under California law, high-frequency litigants are now required to comply with the

24 2 Previously, this Court found Block qualified as a high-frequency litigant. See Block v. Salem,

, at 25 *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2023) (noting that Block acknowledged in response to an order to show cause “that he would be considered a high-frequency litigant under California law”); see also Block v. Cal.-Fresno Investment Co.,

, at *3 n.4 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2023) (finding “Block filed 10 other disability access actions prior to this 26 case in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District within 12 months”). Nevertheless, the Court is not required to determine whether Block currently qualifies as a high-frequency litigant. See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1174 (finding a district 27 court is not required to determine whether a plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant or satisfied the heightened pleading requirements, because “[f]orcing the district court to determine if these two assertions are true would itself run afoul 28 of the Gibbs values”). 1 following requirements:

2 (1) the complaint must allege whether it is filed by or on behalf of a high-frequency litigator; (2) the number of complaints alleging a 3 construction related accessibility claim that were filed by the high frequency litigator in the past twelve months; (3) the reason the high 4 frequency litigator was in the region of the defendant’s business; and (4) the specific reason that the high frequency litigator desired access 5 to the defendant’s business. 6 Machowski, 574 F.Supp.3d at 779 (citation omitted, modifications adopted); see also Cal. Civ. 7 Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A)). The high-frequency litigants must also pay an additional $1,000 8 filing fee.

(a), (b). Importantly, these additional requirements apply 9 only in the state court, and “plaintiffs can circumvent the restrictions on high-frequency litigants 10 by filing their complaints in federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction over the ADA 11 claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.” Shayler v. 1310 PCH, LLC, 51

, 1018 (9th Cir. 2022) (citing Arroyo,

); see also Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170 13 (“we assume ... these new requirements apply only in California state court”). 14 The Ninth Circuit—and district courts within the circuit—recognized an increase in 15 disability access claims brought in federal court by the “high-frequency litigants” who would be 16 subject to the additional requirements before the state. See, e.g., Arroyo,

; 17 Shayler, 51 F.4th at 1017-18 (observing that in the Central District alone, “the number of ADA 18 cases has ballooned from 3 percent of its civil docket to roughly 20 percent in recent years”); 19 Gilbert v. Bonfare Markets, Inc.,

, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023) (noting “the 20 burden the ever-increasing number of [accessibility] cases poses to the federal courts”); Arroyo v. 21 Quach, Inc.,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (“California federal 22 courts have recently experienced a large influx of cases involving a federal claim under the ADA 23 for failure to ensure that businesses are accessible to customers with disabilities, accompanied by 24 a state-law claim under the Unruh Act”) (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit attributed this 25 increase to Unruh Act plaintiffs who sought to avoid the California requirements, “by filing in a 26 federal forum in which [they] can claim these state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the 27 state law’s requirements.” Arroyo,

. As a result, the Ninth Circuit opined "the 28 procedural strictures that California put in place have been rendered largely toothless...”

1 Having acknowledged the apparent avoidance by litigants who pursue their state claims in 2 federal courts, the Ninth Circuit had “little difficulty” reaching the conclusion that “the legal 3 landscape” concerning Unruh Act cases constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the 4 meaning of Section 1367(c)(4). Vo, 49 F.4th at 1169 (citing Arroyo,

). Thus, 5 numerous district courts in California “have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 6 Unruh Act … claims brought alongside ADA claims.” Rutherford v. Nuway Ins. Agency Inc., 7

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2021). 8 2. Compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction 9 The Court finds the Gibbs values of judicial economy and convenience weigh in favor of 10 declining supplemental jurisdiction. Although the Court addressed the merits of the ADA claim 11 to the extent necessary to address the motion for default judgment, it has not been required to 12 expend a significant amount of time and resources on the action as the claims were uncontested. 13 See Whitaker v. Eye Phone City,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020) (finding 14 judicial economy did not weigh in favor of supplemental jurisdiction where the parties had not yet 15 engaged in discovery); see also Brooke v. Shelby Hosp. LLC.,

, at *2-3 (C.D. 16 Cal. July 24, 2023) (declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claims when 17 addressing a motion for default judgment brought by a high-frequency litigant, finding any 18 concerns of judicial economy were outweighed by concerns of comity). Moreover, any 19 inefficiencies created by the Court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction “are problems 20 ultimately that resulted from [the] plaintiff’s decision to file this [a]ction in federal, rather than 21 state court.” See Whitaker v. Aftaliion,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2020). 22 Fairness also weighs in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act 23 claim. Block has not been prevented from receiving injunctive relief to remove the encountered 24 accessibility barriers —the only relief available—under his ADA claim before the federal court. 25 On the other hand, it would be unfair to permit Block to evade the limitations California imposed 26 on his accessibility claims. See Schutza v. Cuddeback,

(S.D. Cal. 27 2017); see also Brooke v. Yang & Chang Int’l,

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2024) 28 (finding fairness weighed in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction because “permitting a 1 plaintiff to pursue construction-related accessibility claims in this Court while evading the 2 limitations California has imposed on such claims is unfair to defendants”). 3 Finally, comity weighs in favor of declining jurisdiction, particularly in light of the state’s 4 efforts to thwart abuse of the legal system through the filing of unverified disability access 5 claims. See, e.g., Marquez v. KBMS Hospitality Corp.,

, 1064 (C.D. Cal. 6 2020) (“To allow federal courts to become an escape hatch that allows high-frequency litigants to 7 pursue such claims without satisfying California’s requirements is an affront to the comity 8 between federal and state courts”); Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,

, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 9 Jan. 29, 2024) (comity weighed in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction, because 10 permitting the plaintiff to proceed before the district court would permit evasion of requirements 11 imposed by the California legislature); Schutza v. Alessio Leasing, Inc.,

, at *4 12 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (“By being ‘inefficient’ and declining to exercise supplemental 13 jurisdiction …, this Court is simply recognizing that California has a strong interest in 14 interpreting and enforcing its own rules without federal courts serving as a convenient end-around 15 for creative litigants. If that results in occasional inefficiency, it’s a worthwhile tradeoff.”). 16 IV. Conclusion and Order 17 According to

(b)(1)(C), the Court performed a de novo review of this 18 case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 19 Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis related to Block’s claim 20 under the ADA, and he is entitled to receive the injunctive relief requested. An award of 21 attorneys’ fees and costs is also appropriate, subject to the recommended modifications. However, 22 as described above, there are “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” to decline 23 supplemental jurisdiction over Block’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act and California 24 Health & Safety Code. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt the recommendations related to 25 the claims arising under state law and exercises its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 26 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on November 22, 2024 (Doc. 13) are 28 ADOPTED in part. 1 2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's 2 claims arising under state law pursuant to

(c)(4). 3 3. Plaintiffs claims for violations of the Unruh Act and the California Health & 4 Safety Code are DISMISSED without prejudice. 5 4. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (Doc. 8) is GRANTED IN PART. 6 5. Judgment SHALL be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. 7 6. Plaintiff's request for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Act is DENIED. 8 7. Plaintiff's request for fees, costs, and expenses is GRANTED IN PART, in the 9 modified amount of $2,328.25. 10 8. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief under the ADA is GRANTED. 11 9. Defendant SHALL make modifications within six months to the facility known as 12 “1 Stop Liquor,” located at 407 East Cleveland Avenue, Madera, California 93638 13 to bring the property into compliance with the accessibility requirements of the 14 Americans with Disabilities Act as follows: 15 a. Provide a properly configured and identified accessible parking stall with 16 adjacent access aisle; 17 b. Properly secure or attach the floor mat at the Facility entrance; and 18 C. Provide and maintain accessible routes of travel down merchandise aisles 19 in the Facility. 20 10. The Clerk of Court shall terminate any pending motions and close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: _ December 22, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28