Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 1, 2026, Enrique Garcia sued Lucky Tobacco Shop Inc, 3641 Le Sage Real Estate Partners LLC, and Does 1 to 10 in the Central District of California. The complaint asserts one federal claim, for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and four state claims: damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, damages under the Disabled Persons Act, damages and injunctive relief under Health and Safety Code section 19955 and following, and negligence. Garcia alleges the court has pendent jurisdiction over the state claims.
The order explains that supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) is discretionary, a doctrine of discretion and not of the plaintiff's choice. Section 1367(c) lets a court decline jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominates over the federal claim, follows dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or presents exceptional circumstances. The court must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
The court then describes the comity concern. A private ADA litigant can obtain only prospective injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act expands the available remedies. Citing Arroyo v. Rosas (9th Cir. 2021), the order notes that a confluence of California rules has had a highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases. California responded with verified, heightened pleading for construction-related accessibility claims, added disclosures for high-frequency litigants, and a special filing fee.
The Court’s Holding
This is an in-chambers order to show cause, not a ruling on jurisdiction. The court has not declined supplemental jurisdiction or dismissed any claim, and it has made no finding that Garcia or his counsel is a high-frequency litigant. It requires Garcia to explain in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims.
The court points to authority favoring a decision to decline. Whitaker v. Mac (C.D. Cal. 2019) declined jurisdiction because exercising it would let the plaintiff circumvent restrictions California imposed on Unruh Act claims. Schutza v. Cuddeback (S.D. Cal. 2017) found it improper to let a high-frequency litigant use federal court as an end-around to California's pleading requirements. In Arroyo, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court's principal justification for declining jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion.
Garcia must respond within 14 days and state the statutory damages he seeks. He and his counsel must file declarations under penalty of perjury with the facts bearing on high-frequency-litigant status under Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)-(2). Those facts include the construction-related accessibility claims Garcia filed in the prior 12 months and the claims in which counsel represented high-frequency-litigant plaintiffs in that period. A late or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead the court to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a preliminary show-cause directive; the court has not ruled on supplemental jurisdiction, and no state claim has been dismissed.
- Both the plaintiff and his counsel must submit sworn declarations about their recent accessibility-claim filing history, and the plaintiff must disclose the statutory damages he seeks.
- If the plaintiff misses the 14-day deadline or responds inadequately, the court may decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims without further warning.
- The order addresses only the state-law claims and does not discuss how the ADA injunctive claim would proceed, so that question remains open.
Why It Matters
The order applies the approach approved in Arroyo, which upheld a district court's discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims out of comity concerns. The court raises the issue on its own at the outset instead of waiting for a defense motion. Plaintiffs who pair an ADA injunction claim with California damages claims in this district may be asked early to show they are not sidestepping state pleading and fee rules.
The order is an unpublished minute order in a single case, so it carries no precedential weight. What happens next depends on Garcia's response and declarations. The court says only that it may decline jurisdiction; it does not say what would happen to the state claims afterward, and it makes no findings about the ADA claim.