13 Cited authorities

Hanna v. Plumer
380 U.S. 460 (1965) Cited 3,168 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Organization for Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities v. Brick Oven Restaurant
406 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (S.D. Cal. 2005) Cited 85 times
Holding that potential statutory damage award of $56,000 under Unruh Act substantially predominated over injunctive relief under the ADA
Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant
347 F. Supp. 2d 860 (C.D. Cal. 2004) Cited 71 times
Finding plaintiff's multiple suits were filed in bad faith
Gunther v. Lin
144 Cal.App.4th 223 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 38 times 2 Legal Analyses
Noting the absence of any mention of the Harris intentional discrimination issue in the bill's legislative history
Danner v. Himmelfarb
858 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 56 times
Recognizing some courts have retained supplemental jurisdiction over state claims "whenever there have been lengthy pretrial proceedings" but refusing to "hold that the district court must exercise jurisdiction over pending state claims" in that circumstance
Earll v. eBay, Inc.
Case Number 5:11-cv-00262-JF (HRL) (N.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2011) Cited 18 times
Holding that eBay's website is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA
Schutza v. Mcdonald's Corp.
133 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2015) Cited 12 times
Holding that the state law claims predominated where California accessibility standards provided an independent basis for liability on state law claims, plaintiff alleged intentional discrimination, and the plaintiff sought damages and fees
Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant
359 F. Supp. 2d 924 (C.D. Cal. 2005) Cited 22 times
Finding that the law for recovering damages under state disability statutes is poorly defined
Grutman v. Regents of University of California
807 F. Supp. 2d 861 (N.D. Cal. 2011) Cited 8 times
Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the question whether plaintiff was entitled to recover for each occasion that she encountered the non-compliant front door in her dormitory, and noting that plaintiff's interpretation of “each offense” would result in a $2 million damage award, while defendant's interpretation would “allow for an award of only a nominal $4,000”
Molski v. Kahn Winery
381 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (C.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 6 times
Discussing that "the principle of comity strongly favors dismissing the state law claims" and that allowing state law claims to remain absent federal claims would frustrate the goal of the ADA to quickly rectify structural barriers
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 61,495 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 425.50 - Allegation of construction-related accessibility claim in complaint
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50 Cited 1,098 times
Noting that "high-frequency litigant" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 425.55"
Section 55.56 - Denial of full and equal access to public place or accommodation
Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56 Cited 146 times 2 Legal Analyses
Limiting damages under the Unruh Act to instances where violations of a construction-related accessibility standard "denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular occasion"

Brian Whitaker v. Birds Bar and Cafe, LLC

13 Cited authorities

Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

Holding that potential statutory damage award of $56,000 under Unruh Act substantially predominated over injunctive relief under the ADA

Finding plaintiff's multiple suits were filed in bad faith

Noting the absence of any mention of the Harris intentional discrimination issue in the bill's legislative history

Recognizing some courts have retained supplemental jurisdiction over state claims "whenever there have been lengthy pretrial proceedings" but refusing to "hold that the district court must exercise jurisdiction over pending state claims" in that circumstance

Holding that eBay's website is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA

Holding that the state law claims predominated where California accessibility standards provided an independent basis for liability on state law claims, plaintiff alleged intentional discrimination, and the plaintiff sought damages and fees

Finding that the law for recovering damages under state disability statutes is poorly defined

Discussing that "the principle of comity strongly favors dismissing the state law claims" and that allowing state law claims to remain absent federal claims would frustrate the goal of the ADA to quickly rectify structural barriers

Noting that "high-frequency litigant" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 425.55"

Limiting damages under the Unruh Act to instances where violations of a construction-related accessibility standard "denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular occasion"