Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00571/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00571-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA-LEE HANNAH,

NO. CIV. S-06-571 LKK/DAD

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

WESTERN GATEWAY REGIONAL

RECREATION PARK & DISTRICT;

and COUNTY OF NEVADA,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff alleges that she encountered several access barriers

at Western Gateway Park that prevented her from being able to visit

the park and enjoy its facilities. She alleges violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disabled Persons Act, the

Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code §

19955(a). Defendants Western Gateway Regional Recreation Park &

District and the County of Nevada have filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s state law claims on the grounds that they present novel

or complex issues over which the court should decline to exercise

Case 2:06-cv-00571-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

supplemental jurisdiction. Defendants argue that it is currently

unsettled whether proof of intentional discrimination is required

to obtain damages under the Unruh Act. The court decides the

matter upon the parties’ briefs. For the reasons explained below,

the motion is denied.

II. Standard

Where a district court has original jurisdiction over a claim,

it also has supplemental jurisdiction over “all other claims that

are so related to claims in the action within such original

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.”

28 U.S.C. § 1367. A state claim is part of the same case or

controversy as a federal claim when the two “‘derive from a common

nucleus of operative fact’” such that a plaintiff “‘would

ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.’”

Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass'n, 387 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 2004).

The exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is usually

mandatory, unless the exercise of jurisdiction is prohibited by 28

U.S.C. § 1367(b) or falls under one of the exceptions set forth in

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Executive Software N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dist.

Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 24 F.3d 1545, 1555-56 (9th Cir.

1994). Under section 1367(c), a court may decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over a related state claim if “(1) the

claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim

substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the

district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court

has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,

Case 2:06-cv-00571-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling

reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §

1367).

III. Discussion

Defendants argue that in light of the recent California Court

of Appeal decision in Gunther v. Lin, 144 Cal. App. 4th 223 (2006),

the court should dismiss plaintiff’s state law claims as presenting

novel or complex issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1). As this

court recently noted, “Gunther held what every other court before

it [had] rejected: that proof of intent is required to collect

damages for disability discrimination under the Unruh Act, which

authorizes a minimum of $4,000 per violation.” Wilson v. Haria &

Gogri Corp., 479 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2007).

Courts to date have split on the issue of whether to decline

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under the present

circumstances. Compare Pinnock v. Solana Beach Do It Yourself Dog

Wash, Inc., 2007 WL 1989635 *3 (S.D.Cal. Jul. 3 2007) (“the state

and federal claims are so intertwined that it makes little sense

to decline supplemental jurisdiction. To do so would create the

danger of courts rushing to judgment, increased litigation costs,

and wasted judicial resources.”) and Johnson v. Barlow, 2007 WL

1723617 *2 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2007) (Shubb, J.) (“the conflict

internal to the Unruh Act is not novel”) with Pinnock v. Safino

Designs, Inc., 2007 WL 24612107 *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2007)

(declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on grounds of

novelty/complexity), Morgan v. Am. Stores Co., 2007 WL 1971945 *3

Case 2:06-cv-00571-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

(S.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2007) (same), and Kohler v. Mira Mesa

Marketplace West, LLC, 2007 WL 1614883 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2007)

(same).

As this court held in Wilson, the issues presented by

plaintiff’s state law claims are neither novel nor complex: the

issue of whether intent is required to obtain damages for

disability discrimination under the Unruh Act has already been

extensively litigated and ruled upon by courts. See Wilson, 479

F. Supp. at 1137 (“Every court to have considered the issue with

the exception of Gunther has read Section 51(f) as not requiring

proof of intent.”); id. at 1138 n. 15 (“the issue of state law

presented . . . is not particularly novel or complex in light of

the overwhelming body of case law finding that proof of intent is

not required”).

The fact that there is now an outlier case in an otherwise

uniform body of case law does not transform an old issue into a

“novel” one. Moreover, although this court discussed and rejected

the reasoning of Gunther at length, the issue before the court was

not particularly “complex” in the sense that it was difficult (in

the court’s estimation) to predict how the California Supreme Court

would resolve the issue. Id. at 1136 (finding “convincing

evidence” that the California Supreme Court would disagree with

Gunther).

In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction,

“the ultimate inquiry for the courts [is] whether the assertion of

pendent jurisdiction ‘best accomodate[s] the values of economy[,]

Case 2:06-cv-00571-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 09/25/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 At least in those California superior courts with the

freedom to depart from the Fourth District Court of Appeals’

decision in Gunther.

5

convenience, fairness and comity.’” Executive Software, 24 F.3d

at 1556. Here, it would hardly be economical or convenient to

conduct a trial on all the elements of plaintiff’s ADA claim in

federal court but then require plaintiff to seek relief separately

on the issue of damages in state court. Indeed, the practical

result of such a bifurcated system is that plaintiffs wishing to

obtain damages under the Unruh Act will increasingly file their ADA

claims in state court,1 rather than in federal court, to avoid

duplicated effort and wasted resources. The irony, of course, is

that the underlying right protected by the Unruh Act in these cases

is a federal right. Such a system does not comport with the values

of economy, fairness, or comity.

For these reasons, the court DENIES defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00571-LKK -GGH Document 50 Filed 09/25/07 Page 5 of 5