Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 27, 2026, Dena Peterson filed suit against Vinamanh LLC and Does 1 to 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserted four claims: injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, damages under California's Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Peterson maintained that the court had pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice, and that the statute enumerates situations in which a district court can decline to exercise it, including when the claim substantially predominates over the federal claims or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The court also observed that the Ninth Circuit has recognized a confluence of California-law rules that has created a highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases, threatening federal-state comity.
Under the ADA, the only remedy available to a private litigant is prospective injunctive relief. California's Unruh Act, however, created a state law cause of action that relies on the ADA's substantive rules but expands the remedies available in a private action. This shift resulted in ADA-Unruh Act lawsuits frequently targeting small businesses on the basis of boilerplate complaints to pursue quick cash settlements rather than correction of accessibility violations.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Peterson to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims. The order cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and noted that district courts within California have determined that the interests of fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency litigants.
The court required Peterson to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to support her response with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary to determine if she and her counsel meet the definition of high-frequency litigant under California Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)-(2). This includes the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Peterson in the preceding 12 months and the number of such claims in which her counsel has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs.
Peterson was ordered to file a response no later than 14 days from the date of the order. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California are increasingly skeptical of exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought by high-frequency litigants, viewing it as a potential end-around to state pleading requirements.
- The order requires specific disclosures about the plaintiff's and counsel's litigation history to determine if they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
- The court emphasized that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and that comity concerns can justify declining jurisdiction even when the statutory basis for it exists.
- Failure to respond adequately to the order could result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims without further warning.
- The case highlights the ongoing tension between federal ADA enforcement and California's efforts to curb abusive disability access litigation.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a broader trend among federal courts in California to scrutinize supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims, particularly those brought by serial litigants. By requiring detailed disclosures about litigation history, the court is effectively importing California's procedural reforms into federal practice, even though those reforms do not directly apply in federal court.
The decision underscores the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction and the weight courts give to comity concerns when state law claims appear designed to circumvent state procedural safeguards. For practitioners, the order signals that federal courts may require early justification for keeping related state claims in federal court, especially in the disability access context.