Johnson v. Akkaya

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2023
• Docket: 4:21-cv-04198
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-04198-JST

Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9

10 CIHAN AKKAYA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action against Defendants Cihan and 14 Serife Akkaya, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 15 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) in relation to a business called “John’s 16 Creation” located in San Carlos, California.1 ECF No. 1. On January 30, 2023, the Court granted 17 leave to file an amended complaint. ECF Nos. 34, 28-4 (proposed amended complaint). Plaintiff 18 seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and the Unruh Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, 19 and attorney’s fees and costs. ECF No. 28-4 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. ¶¶ 5-7. 22 Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine 23 Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (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 1 (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 2 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 3 Numerous federal district courts across California have declined to exercise supplemental 4 jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) 5 & (c)(4). See, e.g., Estrada v. Fiesta III, LLC, 2020 WL 883477, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) 6 (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim because 7 “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons” existed, and stating that the plaintiff may 8 “pursue his Unruh Act claim in state court – the appropriate forum for such claim under these 9 circumstances”); Langer v. Mobeeus, Inc., 2020 WL 641771, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2020) 10 (similar); Langer v. Deddeh, 2019 WL 4918084, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) (declining to 11 exercise supplemental jurisdiction because the Unruh Act claim predominated over the ADA 12 claim and the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping constituted exceptional 13 circumstances); Theroux v. Oceanside Motel-9, LP, 2019 WL 4599934, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 14 2019) (similar); Langer v. Petras, 2019 WL 3459107, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) (similar); 15 Spikes v. All Pro Auto Repair, Inc., 2019 WL 4039664, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) 16 (dismissing for these reasons various state law claims including claims for violation of the Unruh 17 Act, California Health and Safety Code Section 19955, negligence per se, and negligence); 18 Rutherford v. Ara Lebanese Grill, 2019 WL 1057919, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2019) (finding that 19 “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use the federal court system as a loophole to evade 20 California’s pleading requirements”). 21 This Court recently declined jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s Unruh Act claims in 22 circumstances like those presented here. Arroyo v. Quach, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-08778-JST, ECF 23 No. 21 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022). The Court noted that California federal courts have recently 24 experienced a large influx of cases involving a federal claim under the ADA for failure to ensure 25 that businesses are accessible to customers with disabilities, accompanied by a state-law claim 26 under the Unruh Act, which provides statutory damages for the same conduct. The Court noted 27 that the Ninth Circuit had tied this increase in filings largely to California’s recent decision to 1 to “balance its objectives of allowing monetary relief, avoiding undue burdens on businesses, and 2 || realigning undesirable incentives for plaintiffs.” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1207, 1213 (9th 3 Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court continued: 4 The comparative ease of filing these cases in federal courts “has created an end-run around California’s requirements,” because 5 heightened procedural requirements generally do not extend to cases filed in federal courts. Id. at 1213 (cleaned up); see also Castillo- 6 Antonio v. Hernandez, No. 19-cv-00672-JCS, 2019 WL 2716289 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2019) (“As district courts within the Ninth 7 Circuit have repeatedly held, state pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims do not apply in federal court 8 because such requirements are procedural in nature and federal courts use federal procedural rules.”). This shift “threatens to 9 substantially thwart California’s carefully crafted reforms in this area and to deprive the state courts of their critical role in 10 effectuating the policies underlying those reforms.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1213. As the Ninth Circuit recognized, this situation presents “extraordinary circumstances” within the 12 meaning of § 1367(c)(4). Id. at 1214. The Court in Quach found the same “extraordinary 13 circumstances,” and then determined, after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and 14 comity, that there were compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 15 5 This case presents the same considerations that were present in Quach and numerous 16 similar cases in other California federal courts. Accordingly, the Court now ORDERS Plaintiff to 17

show cause as to why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Z 18 Unruh Act claim in the complaint in this case. Plaintiff shall file a response to this order to show 19 cause within 14 days of this order. In the response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory 20 damages sought in this action. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall also include declarations in 21 their responses which provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the 22 definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & 23 (2). Failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: February 3, 2023 26 27 JON S. TIGAR nited States District Judge 28