For additional background information, read my first post on defending against high frequency litigants.
Small businesses are often the targets of accessibility-related lawsuits, particularly in states like California, where the state laws, such as the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provide monetary remedies beyond the federal ADA standards. In some cases, plaintiffs use federal court as a venue to bypass state requirements intended to deter abusive litigation. However, a strategy exists for defendants: requesting that federal courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state claims. This approach can provide small businesses with the protective measures offered by state courts and reduce the incentives for filing these claims.
Understanding Supplemental Jurisdiction in ADA Cases
Federal courts have jurisdiction over ADA claims, but state claims—especially those seeking monetary damages—are sometimes added in the same lawsuit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), federal courts can decline jurisdiction over state law claims if they raise complex issues of state law, if state claims substantially predominate, or in “exceptional circumstances.”
Case Law Supporting the Decline of Supplemental Jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Arroyo v. Rosas highlighted that federal retention of state claims related to the ADA can disrupt California’s legislative efforts to curb abusive litigation. The court emphasized that such cases might effectively sidestep procedural requirements California has enacted to balance the interests of accessibility with protections for businesses against frivolous lawsuits. Declining jurisdiction aligns with California’s intent to manage these cases within its own judicial framework.
Key Factors That Favor Declining Jurisdiction
- Forum Shopping: Federal courts have recognized that filing in federal court can be an attempt to avoid the state’s additional requirements, including mandatory verification, special filing fees, and the need to declare high-frequency litigant status.
- Predominance of State Law Claims: Courts have ruled in cases such as Schutza v. McDonald’s Corporation that where the primary goal of a lawsuit is monetary damages under state law, rather than injunctive relief, the state law claims predominate. This factor favors declining supplemental jurisdiction.
- Complexity and Novelty of State Law Issues: California law on accessibility-related claims is continuously evolving, with frequent legislative updates to deter serial litigants. Allowing state courts to handle these claims honors the state’s role in interpreting and enforcing its own legislation.
Practical Benefits of Returning Cases to State Court
For defendants, especially small businesses, state court offers critical procedural safeguards not available in federal court, such as a 90-day stay to address alleged violations and an early evaluation conference. These protections reflect California’s goal of preventing “shakedown” lawsuits while ensuring compliance with accessibility standards.
Conclusion
Federal courts declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims in ADA lawsuits provides a strategic pathway for small businesses facing accessibility-related litigation. By invoking this approach, businesses can better defend against claims designed more for financial gain than for genuine accessibility improvements. Understanding and applying this jurisdictional tactic can serve as a potent defense and help protect against potentially exploitative lawsuits.
Schneider & Branch has sucessfully defended against these lawsuits.
