Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meriah Gardea is the plaintiff in a civil action against Sheila Unlimited, Inc., and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-12771. The only material provided is a one-page civil minute order. The complaint is not included, so the underlying facts, the federal claim and the relief sought are not described. The order treats the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims as being before the court under its supplemental jurisdiction.
On November 2, 2026, Judge Wesley L. Hsu issued an in-chambers order to show cause on the court's own motion. The order cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), which allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where there are other compelling reasons for doing so. It also cites Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). It then refers to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2), which define a high-frequency litigant, and it demands information bearing on that definition. It does not say whether the plaintiff or her counsel meets that definition.
The Court’s Holding
The court decided nothing finally. It ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing, no later than November 16, 2026, why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and all state law claims. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks. The plaintiff and her counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury. Those declarations must provide all facts the court needs to decide whether they satisfy the high-frequency litigant definition in sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The order warns that if the plaintiff does not respond as ordered, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and all state law claims. It would then dismiss those claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order to show cause is discharged once an appropriate response is filed.
Several questions remain open. The order does not say whether the court will keep or decline the state claims after reading the response. It does not decide whether the plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant, and it does not address the merits of any claim. It also does not say what happens to any federal claim. A dismissal without prejudice, if it comes, would not adjudicate the merits of the dismissed state claims. This is an unpublished minute order and carries no precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- The court raised supplemental jurisdiction on its own motion, citing section 1367(c)(4) and Arroyo v. Rosas, without waiting for a defense motion.
- The plaintiff's response, due November 16, 2026, must state the amount of statutory damages she seeks.
- The plaintiff and her counsel must each support their responses with declarations under penalty of perjury covering the facts relevant to high-frequency litigant status under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- If the plaintiff does not respond, the order says the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act and all state law claims without prejudice.
- Filing an appropriate response discharges the order to show cause, but the order does not promise that the court will keep the state claims.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine case-management step, not a decision on the merits. It shows what Central District of California litigants can expect in Unruh Act cases filed alongside federal claims. Plaintiffs may be told to disclose their damages demand and to document their litigation history under oath, and counsel are told they must do the same.
Because it is an unpublished minute order, it binds no other court. Its value is as an example of how one judge in this district is applying section 1367(c)(4) and Arroyo v. Rosas. Whether the court keeps the state claims will depend on the plaintiff's response and a later ruling that is not yet in the record.