Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jorge Luna filed a complaint asserting a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213, and state-law claims for damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53), the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The court acknowledged it has supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the court noted California’s heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act construction-access claims, enacted in 2012 (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code § 425.50(a)), and the 2015 “high-frequency litigant fee” (Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5) aimed at curbing vexatious disability-access litigation. Citing Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), and Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), the court recognized that other district courts have declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims to avoid undermining California’s anti-abuse framework, and that the Ninth Circuit has affirmed such declinations as within the court’s discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
The Court’s Holding
The court did not rule on the merits of any claim. Instead, it issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to explain in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and submit declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, establishing whether Plaintiff and his counsel meet the definition of “high-frequency litigant” under Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). The response is due by October 23, 2026. Failure to respond timely or adequately may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court is considering declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law disability-access claims to respect California’s heightened pleading standards and high-frequency litigant fee regime.
- Plaintiff bears the burden of showing why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and must disclose statutory damages sought.
- Plaintiff and counsel must submit sworn declarations addressing whether they qualify as “high-frequency litigants” under California law.
- The Order cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Arroyo v. Rosas) affirming that avoiding the nullification of state procedural safeguards can constitute “exceptional circumstances” under § 1367(c)(4).
- Non-compliance with the Order to Show Cause may lead to dismissal of all state-law claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
This order signals the court’s willingness to police the intersection of federal supplemental jurisdiction and California’s targeted reforms against serial disability-access litigation. By requiring plaintiff and counsel to disclose high-frequency litigant status under penalty of perjury, the court creates a factual record to assess whether exercising jurisdiction would undermine state comity interests recognized in Arroyo and Schutza.
The ruling is procedural and does not resolve the ADA claim, which remains pending. The outcome of the show-cause response will determine whether the state-law claims proceed in federal court or are dismissed to state court.
The order is also a reminder that litigants must distinguish the immediate ruling from issues left open. Its deadlines and procedural directions apply to this case, while the court’s stated reasoning identifies the legal framework counsel should address in comparable matters. Lawyers should preserve the factual record relevant to that framework, comply precisely with any stated deadline, and avoid treating an interim procedural ruling as a final merits judgment. Those distinctions can determine both the next filing and whether later review is available.