JOHN HO V. FREDERICK RUSSI, No. 20-55915 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff is a paraplegic who cannot walk or stand and requires the use of a wheelchair. In July 2019, Plaintiff visited Pepe’s Mexican Restaurant in Brea, California. During his visit, Plaintiff found that the parking spaces in front of Pepe’s had “slopes and/or cross slopes that exceed[ed] 2.0%,” making it difficult for him to enter and exit his vehicle. Ho filed a complaint in federal court alleging that Pepe’s proprietor had failed to maintain the restaurant’s accessibility in accordance with federal and state law. Plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act).
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Plaintiff’s state law claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel held that the district court erred in sua sponte declining supplemental jurisdiction without providing Plaintiff with notice of its intent to dismiss or an opportunity to respond. This was error because Plaintiff was entitled to argue his claim prior to dismissal.
Court Description: Supplemental Jurisdiction/Americans with. Disabilities Act The panel reversed the district court’s order declining, in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over plaintiff’s state law claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and remanded for further proceedings. The panel held that the district court erred in sua sponte declining supplemental jurisdiction without providing plaintiff with notice of its intent to dismiss or an opportunity to respond. This was error because plaintiff was entitled to argue his claim prior to dismissal. The panel addressed an award of attorney’s fees in a separate memorandum disposition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.