Whitaker v. Pita Hub Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 9, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-05571
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-05571-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 19 10 PITA HUB INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s notice of mootness. [Docket No. 19.] In light of 14 Plaintiff’s representation that his claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities 15 Act (“ADA”) is now moot, the court sua sponte raises the question of whether it should retain 16 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. 17 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) authorizes a district court to “decline to exercise supplemental 18 jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling 19 reasons for declining jurisdiction.” In Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth 20 recognized that “a recent confluence of several California-law rules have combined to create a highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases that clearly threatens to have a 21 significant adverse impact on federal-state comity,” id. at 1211. Recently enacted procedural 22 filing requirements in California state courts have resulted in “a wholesale shifting of Unruh 23 Act/ADA cases into . . . [California federal courts.]” Id. at 1212. As a consequence of this shift, 24 “the procedural strictures that California put in place have been rendered largely toothless, because 25 they can now be readily evaded.” Id. at 1212-13. The Ninth Circuit described these 26 circumstances as “exceptional” and a “very substantial threat to federal-state comity . . . namely, 27 1 substantially thwart California’s carefully crafted reforms in this area and to deprive the state 2 || courts of their critical role in effectuating the policies underlying those reforms.” /d. at 1213. 3 || Accordingly, the court held that the Central District of California acted within its discretion to 4 conclude that “this extraordinary situation threatens unusually significant damage to federal-state 5 comity and presents ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of [28 U.S.C.] § 1367(c)(4).” 6 || Jd. at 1213-14. 7 Following Arroyo’s guidance, the court orders Plaintiff to show cause why this court 8 should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim. See g || Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS, 2022 WL 395316, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022) 10 (declining supplemental jurisdiction where “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, which has not ll progressed beyond threshold questions of standing and jurisdiction, the strong comity concerns

2 identified by the Ninth Circuit in Arroyo outweigh any countervailing considerations of economy E B and efficiency that might be adversely affected by requiring Garcia to refile his Unruh Act claim 4 in state court.”). Plaintiff shall file his response within 7 days from the date of this order.

3 15 Kes DIES DUGp A 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. ye . 17_ || Dated: March 9, 2022 4 — SRDERED D 18 ef °° aM. Ryu < 19 ppm Z > KE 22 DISTRIC® 23 24 25 26 27 28