Langer v. Phils BBQ, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of an order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law Unruh Act claim. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding the plaintiff's arguments lacked binding authority and were untimely.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for reconsideration, which generally requires a showing of manifest error of law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence. The court found that the plaintiff failed to cite binding authority supporting his argument that declining supplemental jurisdiction was an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the court correctly noted that arguments not raised in the original motion or based on new theories must be timely under Rule 60(c)(1) or local rules. The denial without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to refile if the legal landscape changes (e.g., a new binding precedent is issued). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It addresses the plaintiff's specific argument (that the judge misunderstood the complaint) by clarifying the source of the plaintiff's confusion. It then addresses the merits by noting the lack of binding authority and the untimeliness of new arguments. The denial without prejudice is a reasonable outcome given the plaintiff's failure to provide the necessary legal basis for reconsideration at that time.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, Case No.: 20-cv-1597-CAB-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. RECONSIDERATION 14 PHIL’S BBQ, INC., [Doc. No. 12] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the 20 Court’s order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law 21 claim. Defendant did not oppose the motion. As stated in the order, the Court declined to 22 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under California’s Unruh Act for 23 two reasons, each of which independently justified the Court’s decision: (1) that Plaintiff’s 24 Unruh Act claim predominates over his federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities 25 Act (“ADA”); and (2) that the interests of comity and discouraging forum shopping 26 constitute exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental 27 jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s primary argument for reconsideration is his belief that the 28 undersigned, who entered the order, mistook his complaint as concerning a construction- 1 related accessibility claim, when the complaint concerns only Defendant’s website. 2 According to Plaintiff, this mistake undercuts the Court’s second rationale for declining 3 supplemental jurisdiction. 4 It is Plaintiff, however, who is mistaken. Plaintiff bases his belief that the 5 undersigned district judge misunderstood the complaint on an order by the magistrate judge 6 in this case. The undersigned, meanwhile, entered its order fully aware of the subject 7 matter of Plaintiff’s complaint. 8 More importantly, Plaintiff’s motion cites to no binding authority holding that a 9 district court abuses its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh 10 Act claim at the outset of a lawsuit that is in federal court based on an ADA claim. 11 Thousands of such cases have been filed in federal district courts in California (including 12 over one thousand by Plaintiff himself)1 over the past several years, so the absence of such 13 authority is noteworthy. Moreover, Plaintiff even acknowledges that other district courts 14 have declined to retain jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims notwithstanding the same 15 arguments Plaintiff makes in his motion. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is 16 premised on arguments that are independent of Plaintiff’s mistaken belief that the 17 undersigned was unaware of the substance of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds that 18 Plaintiff’s motion was not made within a reasonable time under Rule 60(c)(1) or within the 19 28 days required by CivLR 7.1(i)(2), and Plaintiff offers no explanation or good cause for 20 why he waited almost two months to raise such arguments. 21 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED without 22 prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file a motion for reconsideration based on subsequent binding 23 authority holding that a district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over 24 25 26 1 See generally Langer v. Honey Baked Ham, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-1627-BEN-AGS, 2020 WL 6545992, at 27 *10 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (taking “judicial notice of the fact that as of the date of this order, PACER shows a total of 1,508 cases in which the plaintiff is named Chris Langer”). 28 1 Unruh Act claim at the outset of a case that is in federal court based on an ADA claim 2 ||is an abuse of discretion or is otherwise a reversible error. 3 It is SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 13, 2020 € ZL 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28