Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meriah Gardea, who requires a wheelchair while traveling in public, sued Tacos Los Martinez LLC and other defendants in the Central District of California. She alleges that physical barriers at the defendants' facilities impede her access, in violation of, among other laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Those are allegations only, and the order makes no findings about the facilities or the claims.
Because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, the court recognized that it has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). It stressed, however, that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of a plaintiff's right. Section 1367(c) lets a court decline it when a claim raises a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominates, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or, in exceptional circumstances, presents other compelling reasons.
The court relied on the published Ninth Circuit decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Arroyo explained that California's 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act, meant to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related claims, were followed by a surge of ADA cases in federal court seeking Unruh Act statutory damages. That shift let litigants evade the state reforms. The Ninth Circuit held these circumstances are exceptional under section 1367(c)(4). It nonetheless reversed in that case because the district court waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim to decline jurisdiction, effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim and invoking comity too late.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. distinguished Arroyo on timing. This case is at a very early stage, and the court has not addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of the plaintiff's claims. The court said this appears to be a case in which it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under section 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. That is a preliminary view, not a final ruling.
The operative relief is an order to show cause. The plaintiff has 14 days after entry of the order to explain in writing why the court should not dismiss her Unruh Act claim without prejudice. Her response must state the amount of statutory damages she seeks. It must also be supported by declarations signed under penalty of perjury that supply all facts needed to decide whether she and her counsel meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
If she does not respond in time, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice, without further order. The order does not dismiss the ADA claim or resolve any merits question.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a show-cause directive, not a dismissal, so the Unruh Act claim stays pending until the plaintiff responds or the 14-day period passes.
- Any dismissal under section 1367(c)(4) would be without prejudice, so it would not be a final judgment on the merits of the Unruh Act claim.
- The court wants sworn facts about the statutory damages sought and about whether the plaintiff and her counsel are high-frequency litigants before it decides.
- Timing is central: the court contrasted Arroyo, where declining jurisdiction after summary judgment came too late, with this case, which is at the outset.
- Failure to file a timely response triggers automatic dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is a single district-court order in an early-stage case. It does not decide the Unruh Act claim and carries no precedential weight of its own. Its value is in showing how a Central District judge applies the published Arroyo decision: by raising comity concerns before any merits adjudication rather than after.
Much remains open. The court has not decided whether the plaintiff or her counsel is a high-frequency litigant, how much in statutory damages is sought, or whether the plaintiff's response will persuade the court to keep the claim. The order also says nothing about the merits of the ADA claim, which supplies the federal basis for jurisdiction. The next step is the plaintiff's response and any later order resolving the show-cause question.