This Week At The Ninth: Supplemental Jurisdiction Declined

• Published date: 26 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
• Author: Ms Lena H. Hughes

This week, the Ninth Circuit approves a district court decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction in a joint California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act case.

VO V. CHOI

The Court holds that a district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim in a joint Unruh/Americans with Disabilities Act case.

The Panel: Judges Smith, Jr., Bade, and VanDyke, with Judge VanDyke writing the opinion, and Judge Bade writing a partial concurrence and partial dissent.

Key Highlight: 'The district court's order declining supplemental jurisdiction was issued weeks before it ruled on the ADA claim, the court explained why the concerns surrounding ADA/Unruh claims applied to the case before it, and the court explicitly considered the relevant factors when it invoked [28 U.S.C.] ' 1367(c)(4). That is all that our caselaw requires.'

Background: Plaintiff Thanh Vo brought suit against defendant John Choi, the owner of a shopping plaza in Garden Grove, California, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. A default was entered after Choi failed to respond to Vo's complaint and Vo then filed a motion for default judgment on both claims. The district court ordered Vo to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act claim, which may have been subject to heightened pleading requirements in state court. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim because the court concluded it would be unfair to defendants if plaintiffs could bypass the limitations California state law had imposed on such claims simply by bringing them in state court. The court then entered a default judgment on the ADA claim and Vo appealed.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that the framework for evaluating a district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(c)(4) in a joint ADA and Unruh Act suit was set out in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). That case instructed that the court must articulate why the circumstances of the case are exceptional, and whether the balance of the values set out in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances. Applying this framework here, the Court held...