Fernando Gastelum v. CWI 2 La Jolla Hotel LP

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 25cv2852-LL-BJW 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 14 CWI 2 LA JOLLA HOTEL LP, 15 Defendant. — 16 — 17 Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum, who uses a wheelchair to ambulate, seeks injunctive 18 relief for CWI 2 La Jolla Hotel LP’s alleged violations under the Americans with 19 Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). 20 Plaintiff also seeks damages under the Unruh Act. See id. His core grievance is that 21 “Defendant’s hotel does not have a compliant access aisle at the passenger loading zone 22 adjacent to the hotel lobby.” Compl. ¶ 7. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show why 23 supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim is proper, and he timely responded. 24 ECF Nos. 3, 4. For the reasons below, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are “so 28 related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the 1 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1367(a). Even if such a related claim exists, declining supplemental jurisdiction is 3 appropriate when (1) it raises a “novel or complex” issue of state law, (2) it “substantially 4 predominates” over the original claims, (3) the court has “dismissed” all original claims, 5 or (4) other “exceptional circumstances” and “compelling reasons.” Id. § 1367(c). “While 6 discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered 7 by the presence of one of the conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values 8 ‘of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’ ” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 9 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 The ADA permits a plaintiff to seek “injunctive relief,” not damages. See 42 U.S.C. 12 § 12188(a). By contrast, the Unruh Act permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover injunctive 13 relief and at least “$4,000” in damages. See Cal. Civ. Code § 52 (a). The ADA and Unruh 14 Act otherwise have identical “substantive rules.” See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 , 1211 15 (9th Cir. 2021). Because the “sole remedy under the ADA is injunctive relief, which is also 16 available under the Unruh Act,” there is no advantage to “being in federal court” other than 17 “avoiding state-imposed pleading requirements.” See Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 18 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017). 19 To explain, in an effort to deter baseless and vexatious litigation, California enacted 20 heightened pleading requirements for “a construction-related accessibility claim” under the 21 Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50 . California also imposed an additional 22 “$1,000” filing fee for any “high-frequency litigant,” defined as a “plaintiff who has filed 23 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 1224 month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint” alleging the same. 25 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55 (b)(1). This extra work and 26 money to draft and file an adequate complaint only applies in California state court. To 27 avoid this, plaintiffs and their attorneys have flooded district courts with Unruh state claims 28 paired with ADA claims to serve as the federal-jurisdiction foothold. See Arroyo, 19 F.4th 1 at 1207 (noting that the annual number of ADA cases filed in one district court “jumped” 2 from 419 to 2,720 cases a year, 3 to 22 percent of its entire civil docket, after this change). 3 Here, Plaintiff has filed well over the requisite 10 complaints alleging a construction4 related accessibility violation within the past year to make him a high-frequency litigant. 5 Indeed, he has filed dozens of construction-related accessibility cases in this district over 6 the recent years, along with dozens more across California’s three other district courts. 7 California has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from abusive 8 litigation and in preventing its own laws from unjust circumvention. This is, after all, why 9 California’s Legislature enacted changes to those seeking relief under the Unruh Act. The 10 Legislature found some plaintiffs’ attorneys abused the Act by targeting “small businesses 11 on the basis of boilerplate complaints” to pursue “quick cash settlements rather than 12 correction of the accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55 (a)(2). This practice 13 also “unfairly taints the reputation of other innocent disabled consumers.” Id. Therefore, 14 the Court finds that the interests of comity and fairness disfavor supplemental jurisdiction 15 over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim. See Schutza, 262 F. Supp. 3d at 1031 (“As a high-frequency 16 litigant primarily seeking relief under state law, the Court finds it would be improper to 17 allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements. 18 Therefore, as a matter of comity, and in deference to California’s substantial interest in 19 discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental 20 jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.”). 21 Plaintiff’s actions constitute forum shopping, too, which is another reason to decline 22 jurisdiction. See id. (“Plaintiff is engaging in forum-shopping by bringing his action in 23 federal court and attempting to avoid California’s heightened pleading requirements for 24 disability discrimination claims.”); Org. for the Advancement of Minorities v. Brick Oven 25 Rest., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1132 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“Because a legitimate function of the 26 federal courts is to discourage forum shopping and California courts should interpret 27 California law, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to decline supplemental 28 jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.”). 1 Finally, courts routinely decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims after 2 || finding they “substantially predominate” over ADA claims. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Ara 3 || Lebanese Grill, No. 18-cv-1497-AJB-WVG, 2019 WL 1057919 , at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4 2019) (listing cases). This Court finds the same. “Plaintiff and [his] out-of-state attorney 5 ||are primarily seeking quick cash settlements rather than correction of any accessibility 6 || violations, a more or less shakedown that they seek to obtain through bargaining in the 7 ||shadow of the Unruh Act.” Brooke v. Sesode LLC, No. 25-cv-0676-LL-MMP, 2025 WL 8 || 1100897, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2025). 9 For all these reasons, declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh 10 |/claim is exceedingly appropriate. And nothing in Plaintiff's boilerplate response to the 11 || Court’s Order to Show Cause credibly suggests otherwise. See generally ECF No. 4. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 14 || Unruh claim, which is now dismissed without prejudice. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: November 5, 2025 NO 17 DE | 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States District Judge — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —