Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bernard Taruc filed suit against Service Avenue Self-Storage, L.P. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, and other provisions of California law. The complaint invoked supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
On October 28, 2026, District Judge John A. Kronstadt issued an order to show cause directed at the state-law claims. The court reviewed the complaint and the docket and determined that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Taruc had filed more than ten actions in the district advancing construction-related accessibility claims.
The court observed that in a California Superior Court, Taruc would be deemed a high-frequency litigant, and that California's recent legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in the case.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), and that district courts should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation, citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990). The court noted that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 under Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1) and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a), and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 under Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5, reforms aimed at the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims.
Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum, the court observed that many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction. Given Taruc's filing history, the court found he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California Superior Court and that California has a substantial interest in the case.
The court ordered Taruc to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, requiring a response of no more than ten pages by November 10, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and including a declaration under penalty of perjury addressing whether he meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Defendants were permitted to file a response of no more than ten pages by November 17, 2026. The court warned that failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and that upon receipt of the responses the matter will be taken under submission and a written order will issue.
Key Takeaways
- District courts have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, and that discretion is informed by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
- California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fee reflect a substantial state interest in regulating construction-related accessibility claims brought by repeat plaintiffs.
- A plaintiff who files more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in a one-year period may be deemed a high-frequency litigant, supporting a federal court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction may result in dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The order to show cause is not a final dismissal; it directs the plaintiff to justify retention of the state-law claims before the court decides whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This order reflects an ongoing practice among federal district courts in California of scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought by high-frequency litigants. By requiring the plaintiff to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and to disclose the statutory damages sought, the court signaled that federal forums should not be used to circumvent state-law procedural requirements designed to curb serial accessibility litigation.
The decision underscores the interplay between federal supplemental jurisdiction doctrine and state legislative efforts to manage disability access litigation, and it provides a framework other courts may follow when evaluating whether to retain pendent state-law claims in similar cases.