Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Meriah Gardea, a wheelchair user, filed suit against Best Cafe Enterprises, LLC alleging that the defendant’s facilities contain physical barriers that impede her access in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court recognized it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal ADA claim. However, the court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff’s right, and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) which permits courts to decline jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the court should not dismiss her Unruh Act claim without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4). Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), the court found that California’s 2012 and 2015 Unruh Act amendments—designed to curb abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants—have been circumvented by plaintiffs filing ADA cases in federal court while seeking Unruh Act statutory damages. The Ninth Circuit held this threatens California’s legislative reforms and federal-state comity, constituting ‘exceptional circumstances’ under § 1367(c)(4). Unlike in Arroyo, where the district court declined jurisdiction only after deciding the ADA claim on summary judgment, this case is at an early stage with no merits adjudication, making timely exercise of discretion appropriate.
The court ordered Plaintiff’s response to identify the statutory damages sought and include declarations under penalty of perjury establishing whether Plaintiff and her counsel qualify as ‘high-frequency litigants’ under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). Failure to respond will result in automatic dismissal without prejudice of the Unruh Act claim.
Key Takeaways
- The court is considering declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims joined with ADA claims at an early stage, citing Arroyo v. Rosas.
- Plaintiff must show cause within 14 days why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4).
- Plaintiff’s response must specify the amount of statutory damages sought and include sworn declarations addressing ‘high-frequency litigant’ status under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2).
- The court distinguishes Arroyo on timing grounds: here, no merits rulings have been made, allowing timely invocation of comity interests.
- Failure to respond triggers automatic dismissal without prejudice of the Unruh Act claim.
Why It Matters
This order signals a proactive approach by the Central District of California to enforce the comity principles articulated in Arroyo v. Rosas by screening Unruh Act claims at the outset of litigation rather than after merits adjudication. By requiring plaintiffs to disclose statutory damages sought and high-frequency litigant status early, the court aims to prevent circumvention of California’s legislative reforms targeting abusive construction-related accessibility litigation.
The ruling reflects growing federal judicial scrutiny of the interplay between ADA and Unruh Act claims and may portend a broader trend of early dismissal of pendent state law claims where state legislative policy would be undermined by federal court adjudication. The procedural posture matters as much as the doctrine. The court did not finally resolve every claim or factual dispute; it addressed the particular motion before it and specified what could happen next. Counsel should therefore read the relief, amendment opportunity, and stated deadline together with the legal analysis rather than treating the order as a final merits judgment.