Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Garland Horton filed suit against Thomas R. Kuo and others in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims for damages and injunctive relief arising out of alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and a theory of negligence. The case was assigned docket number 2:26-cv-12434-MWC-MBK.
On November 6, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order to show cause directed at the state-law components of the complaint. The order reflects the court's concern about whether it should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). The order does not resolve the merits of any claim but instead establishes a procedural framework for the plaintiff to justify retaining the state-law claims in federal court.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than Friday, November 13, 2026, why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any related state-law claims. The order expressly relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), which permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, and cites Arroyo v. Rosas as supporting authority. This directive is an order to respond, not a present dismissal of any claim.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks to recover. In addition, the plaintiff and his counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). These requirements are designed to give the court the factual basis needed to evaluate the exceptional-circumstances inquiry.
The court warned that failure to respond as ordered will result in it declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order does not resolve the ADA claim itself, which remains pending. No dismissal occurs unless and until the plaintiff fails to comply with the response deadline and requirements.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause by November 13, 2026, why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- The plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and submit declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as 'high-frequency litigants' under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice, while the federal ADA claim is not dismissed by this order.
- The order cites the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), as authority for potentially declining supplemental jurisdiction.
- The order is procedural in nature and does not adjudicate the merits of any claim; it establishes a deadline and evidentiary requirements for the plaintiff's response.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates a federal district court scrutinizing supplemental state-law claims in an ADA accessibility case, a posture that has become common in the Central District of California where courts examine whether state-law damages claims tied to serial ADA filings warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction. The requirement that the plaintiff and counsel disclose statutory damages sought and high-frequency litigant status under California law signals the court's focus on the exceptional-circumstances exception in § 1367(c)(4).
The order leaves the federal ADA claim intact and gives the plaintiff an opportunity to justify retaining the state-law claims in federal court. The outcome will turn on the plaintiff's written response and the declarations regarding litigation history and damages. The order also demonstrates the court's proactive case management in addressing potential jurisdictional issues early in the litigation.