Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias sued Catalina Center LLC 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, which the court identified as the central procedural question requiring attention.
On November 5, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause focused on whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 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). It further noted that district courts should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation, citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Associates, 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Court’s Holding
The court observed that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 for plaintiffs and law firms bringing large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by pursuing claims in a federal forum, the court noted that many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction.
A review of the district's docket showed that in the one-year period preceding the complaint, Tapias had filed more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims, meaning he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California Superior Court. The court therefore ordered Tapias 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 19, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and presenting a declaration under penalty of perjury with evidence bearing on whether he meets the high-frequency litigant definition in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) and (2).
The court warned that failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendants were permitted to file a response of up to ten pages by November 26, 2026, after which the matter will be taken under submission and a written order will issue.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act and other state-law claims, rather than dismissing them outright.
- The plaintiff filed more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in the district in the year before this suit, which the court found would make him a high-frequency litigant under California law.
- The court reasoned that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would let high-frequency plaintiffs circumvent California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fees by choosing a federal forum.
- The plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and submit a perjury-signed declaration addressing the high-frequency litigant criteria by November 19, 2026, or risk dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.
- Defendants may also respond by November 26, 2026, and the matter will then be taken under submission for a written order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how federal courts in California use the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to police forum shopping by serial accessibility plaintiffs, deferring to the state's substantial interest in regulating high-frequency construction-related accessibility litigation.
By requiring a sworn declaration on high-frequency litigant status and a statement of statutory damages sought, the order signals that plaintiffs pursuing Unruh Act claims alongside ADA claims in federal court should be prepared to justify federal adjudication of their state-law claims or face dismissal without prejudice to refiling in state court.