Hernandez v. Syncrasy

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 GERARDO HERNANDEZ, Case No. 21-cv-09212-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 v. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 11 SYNCRASY, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter brings claims for violations of the 14 Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Act, seeking injunctive relief, 15 equitable and statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Compl. (dkt. 1). 16 Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law 17 claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” 18 litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this 19 will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh 20 Act claim. See Vo v. Choi, No. 20-55737, 2022 WL 4362289, at *3–4 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 21 2022); Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, 21-cv- 22 3743, 2022 WL 395316, at *2–5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Plaintiff is therefore ordered to 23 show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 24 the Unruh Act claim. 25 The plaintiff must respond within 21 days of this order. Failure to respond will 26 result in a dismissal of this action with prejudice. 27 1 IT ISSO ORDERED. 2 Dated: October 11, 2022 € A ¥ CHARLES R. BREYER 3 United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

¢ 15

16 5 17 5 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28