Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Judge Who Finds ADA Breach Can’t Dismiss Unruh Claim
|
|
|
Depicted above is Gardena Main Plaza Liquor where, the plaintiff in a disability discrimination case, he encountered obstacles to access. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday held that once a District Court judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on an Americans With Disabilities Act claim, it was an abuse of discretion not to award damages under the state Unruh Act. |
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held on Friday that a judge who found that a defendant who violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act abused his discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim under California’s Unruh Act and award damages.
Under the ADA, injunctive relief, only, may be obtained while the Unruh Act additionally provides for damages, with a minimum award of $4,000 per occasion.
Friday’s opinion by Judge Daniel P. Collins reverses the dismissal of paraplegic Rafael Arroyo Jr.’s claim under the Unruh Act against Carmen Rosas, owner of the Gardena Main Plaza Liquor. The wheelchair-bound plaintiff alleged that obstacles impeded his access to the premises.
‘No Sense’
“From the perspective of judicial economy and convenience, it makes no sense to decline jurisdiction, as the district court did, over a pendent state law claim that that court has effectively already decided,” Collins wrote, explaining:
“Under the plain language of California Civil Code § 51(f), a violation of the ADA is automatically, without more, a violation of the Unruh Act….Accordingly, the district court’s ADA ruling already established that Rosas has violated the Unruh Act, and it identified the specific respects in which she did so.”
He went on to say:
“Given that the correct disposition of Arroyo’s Unruh Act claim follows obviously and ineluctably from the findings that the district court has already made, it would be a sheer waste of time and resources to require that claim to be refiled in state court.”
District Court Order
In state court, a “high frequency litigant” in disability discrimination cases, such as Arroyo, faces procedural restrictions in state court that do not exist in federal court.
District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the Central District of California said in his Aug. 20, 2019 order dismissing the Unruh Act claim, without prejudice to being refiled in the Superior Court:
“Here, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction given California’s interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims, as the state’s recent legislation reflects.”
He noted that the California Legislature had acted to discourage serial filing of actions based on disability discrimination by public accommodations, requiring that complaints be verified, that certain facts be set forth, and that a plaintiff reveal if her or she had filed 10 or more such complaints within the past year and, if so, to pay a $1,000 filing fee in addition to the normal fee.
The judge noted that Arroyo had filed at least 38 complaints alleging ADA violations in the one-year period preceding the July 23, 2018 complaint against Rosas. In addition, he said, his attorneys—with the Center for Disability Access in San Diego—“have filed hundreds, if not thousands, of ADA cases within the twelve-month period preceding the filing of this complaint.”
Gutierrez declared:
“By enacting restrictions on the filing of construction-related accessibility claims. California has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens California’s businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. By filing in federal court, Plaintiff has evaded these limits and sought a forum in which he can claim these state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements. This situation, and the burden the ever-increasing number of such cases poses to the federal courts, present ‘exceptional circumstances’ and ‘compelling reasons’ that justify exercising the Court’s discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs Unruh Act claim in this action….”
Reasons for Reversal
Collins found that justification would have existed for declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at an early stage, but not after the validity of the ADA claim had been established through summary judgment. He said:
“At this point, the only thing that would be accomplished by sending the Unruh Act claim to state court—other than burdening the state court with pointless make-work—would be to dun Arroyo for the $1,000 special filing fee for high-frequency litigants as well as the other standard filing fees….In the present circumstances, that would amount to little more than a gratuitous tax on the award to which Arroyo has already established he is entitled.
“Finally, there is no sense in which the district court’s dismissal can be said to further the interest in ensuring that the federal courts not be burdened with combined ADA/Unruh Act cases that would not have survived California’s up-front screening mechanisms. Any burden from this particular litigation has already been borne, and all that remains is the relatively ministerial task of entering judgment on the foreordained Unruh Act claim.”
Too Late
He added:
“[W]e are sympathetic to the district court’s desire to address the unique burdens that flow from the extraordinary confluence of California rules concerning Unruh Act claims. But it is simply too late to undo the now-sunk costs already inclined by litigating this matter to its now-inevitable conclusion.”
In the District Court, Arroyo sought an award of $21,877 in attorney fees. On Oct. 18, 2019, Gutierrez declined to act on Arroyo’s request until the Ninth Circuit decided his appeal.
On remand, it will be up to the judge to make a $4,000 award of statutory damages and to set the fees.
The case is Arroyo v. Rosas, 19-55974.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company