•  
  •  
 

Denis Bogatin

First Page

141

Last Page

194

Document Type

Comment

Abstract

Since California adopted heightened pleading standards for high-frequency litigants alleging violations of the Unruh Act in state court, federal district courts have seen a surge of ADA and Unruh Act claims filed together to secure subject matter jurisdiction. Most courts dismissed the Unruh claims under their discretionary authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but they remained divided on whether plaintiffs in these cases have a right to jury trial—statutory or constitutional. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit resolved part of the split in In re Tsay, holding that the Unruh Act provides a constitutional right to a jury trial because it authorizes civil penalties, but not a statutory right, noting that the phrase “any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury” is too vague and insufficient to grant this right. On the constitutional issue, however, the court offered little guidance to district courts on whether those civil penalties become equitable when the Unruh claim is “intertwined with” or “incidental to” ADA injunctive relief—the very issue that divided the district courts. This Comment fills that gap and explains why intertwinement cannot defeat the availability of the right to jury trial. On the statutory issue, this Comment offers a route different from the one the Ninth Circuit took. Because the Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to avoid constitutional questions when a reasonable statutory interpretation is available, the Ninth Circuit should first have considered whether it is “fairly possible” to read Unruh’s language to grant a jury trial. Although Erie generally requires deference to state-court interpretations, this Comment proposes an exception—rooted in Supreme Court precedent—recognizing that federal courts, guided by the Seventh Amendment’s unique protection of the jury right (which remains unincorporated), must apply federal interpretive tools to construe ambiguous state statutes like Unruh in favor of jury trial. This approach avoids the constitutional question, preserves the jury trial in federal court, and promotes federalism.

Download

Share

COinS