Brooke v. Sesode LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00676
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERESA BROOKE, Case No.: 25cv0676-LL-MMP

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

14 SESODE LLC,

15 Defendant. 16

17 Plaintiff Theresa Brooke, who uses a wheelchair to ambulate, seeks injunctive relief 18 for Defendant Sesode LLC’s alleged violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act 19 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff also seeks 20 damages under the Unruh Act. See id. Her core grievance is that “Defendant’s hotel does 21 not have a compliant access aisle at the passenger loading zone adjacent to the hotel lobby.” 22 Compl. ¶ 7. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show why supplemental jurisdiction over her 23 Unruh claim is proper, and she timely responded. ECF Nos. 3, 4. For the reasons below, 24 the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are “so 27 related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the 28 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1367(a). Even if such a related claim exists, declining supplemental jurisdiction is 2 appropriate when (1) it raises a “novel or complex” issue of state law, (2) it “substantially 3 predominates” over the original claims, (3) the court has “dismissed” all original claims, 4 or (4) other “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons.” Id. § 1367(c). “While 5 discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered 6 by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values 7 ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’ ” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 8 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 The ADA permits a plaintiff to seek “injunctive relief,” not damages. See 42 U.S.C. 11 § 12188(a). By contrast, the Unruh Act permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover injunctive 12 relief and at least “$4,000” in damages. See Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). The ADA and Unruh 13 Act otherwise have identical “substantive rules.” See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 14 (9th Cir. 2021). Because the “sole remedy under the ADA is injunctive relief, which is also 15 available under the Unruh Act,” there is no advantage to “being in federal court” other than 16 “avoiding state-imposed pleading requirements.” See Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 17 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017). 18 To explain, in an effort to deter baseless and vexatious litigation, California enacted 19 heightened pleading requirements for “a construction-related accessibility claim” under the 20 Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50. California also imposed an additional 21 “$1,000” filing fee for any “high-frequency litigant,” defined as a “plaintiff who has filed 22 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12- 23 month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint” alleging the same. 24 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). This extra work and 25 money to draft and file an adequate complaint only applies in California state court. To 26 avoid this, plaintiffs and their attorneys have flooded district courts with Unruh state claims 27 paired with ADA claims to serve as the federal-jurisdiction foothold. See Arroyo, 19 F.4th 28 at 1207 (noting that the annual number of ADA cases filed in one district court “jumped” 1 from 419 to 2,720 cases a year, 3 to 22 percent of its entire civil docket, after this change). 2 Here, Plaintiff has filed over 200 construction-related accessibility cases in this 3 district since 2015, with more than 50 filed in the last year, making her a high-frequency 4 litigant. California has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from 5 abusive litigation and in preventing its own laws from unjust circumvention. This is, after 6 all, why California’s Legislature enacted changes to those seeking relief under the Unruh 7 Act. The Legislature found some plaintiffs’ attorneys abused the Act by targeting “small 8 businesses on the basis of boilerplate complaints” to pursue “quick cash settlements rather 9 than correction of the accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(a)(2). This 10 practice also “unfairly taints the reputation of other innocent disabled consumers.” Id. 11 Therefore, the Court finds that the interests of comity and fairness disfavor supplemental 12 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim. See Schutza, 262 F. Supp. 3d at 1031 (“As a high- 13 frequency litigant primarily seeking relief under state law, the Court finds it would be 14 improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California’s pleading 15 requirements. Therefore, as a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial 16 interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines 17 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.”). 18 Plaintiff’s actions constitute forum shopping, too, which is another reason to decline 19 jurisdiction. See id. (“Plaintiff is engaging in forum-shopping by bringing his action in 20 federal court and attempting to avoid California’s heightened pleading requirements for 21 disability discrimination claims.”); Org. for the Advancement of Minorities v. Brick Oven 22 Rest., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1132 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“Because a legitimate function of the 23 federal courts is to discourage forum shopping and California courts should interpret 24 California law, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to decline supplemental 25 jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.”). 26 Finally, courts routinely decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims after 27 finding they “substantially predominate” over ADA claims. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Ara 28 Lebanese Grill, 2019 WL 1057919, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) (listing cases). 1 || This Court finds the same. Plaintiff and her out-of-state attorney are primarily seeking 2 || quick cash settlements rather than correction of any accessibility violations, a more or less 3 || shakedown that they seek to obtain through bargaining in the shadow of the Unruh Act. 4 For all these reasons, declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh 5 ||claim is exceedingly appropriate. And nothing in Plaintiff's boilerplate response to the 6 || Court’s Order to Show Cause credibly suggests otherwise. See generally ECF No. 4. 7 IM. CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 9 || Unruh claim, which is now dismissed without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: April 14, 2025 NO 12 eS | 13 Honorable Linda Lopez 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28