Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey, who uses a wheelchair when traveling in public, sued Bellflower Park, LP in the Central District of California. He alleges that the defendant's facilities contain physical barriers that impede his access, in violation of, among other laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act. These are allegations only; the order makes no findings about whether any barrier exists or whether any law was violated. The court observes that, because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, it has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court then stresses that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of a plaintiff's right, and that section 1367(c) lists circumstances in which a court may decline it, including, in exceptional circumstances, other compelling reasons under subsection (c)(4). It relies on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). As the order describes Arroyo, California's 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act were meant to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related claims, but a surge of federal ADA filings seeking Unruh Act statutory damages allowed those requirements to be readily evaded. Arroyo held that these circumstances are exceptional under § 1367(c)(4). It nonetheless reversed in that case, because the district court had waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim, effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim, and so had waited too long to invoke the comity interest.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a ruling declining jurisdiction. The court distinguishes Arroyo on timing: this case is at a very early stage, and the court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Plaintiff's claims. On that basis the court says this 'appears to be' a case in which it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo. It therefore orders Plaintiff, within 14 days after entry of the order, to show cause in writing why the court should not dismiss the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks. It must also be supported by declarations signed under penalty of perjury that provide all facts needed to decide whether Plaintiff and his counsel meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If Plaintiff does not respond within 14 days, the court states that it will decline supplemental jurisdiction and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice, without further order. A dismissal of that kind would not be an adjudication of the claim's merits.
Key Takeaways
- The order is preliminary: nothing has been dismissed yet, and the Unruh Act claim stays pending until the court acts after Plaintiff's response or the 14-day deadline passes.
- The court's stated reasoning turns on timing, because it has made no merits ruling and therefore views the comity concerns recognized in Arroyo as still capable of being protected by declining jurisdiction now.
- Plaintiff must state the statutory damages he seeks and submit sworn declarations addressing whether he and his counsel are high-frequency litigants under section 425.55(b)(1)–(2).
- If Plaintiff files no response within 14 days, the Unruh Act claim will be dismissed without prejudice automatically, with no further order.
- The order does not address the ADA claim or any other claim, so the federal claims are not affected by the show-cause directive.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District judge applies Arroyo at the outset of a case, raising § 1367(c)(4) on the court's own initiative before any merits ruling. Its demand for sworn information about statutory damages and high-frequency litigant status indicates the facts this judge considers relevant when weighing comity in an ADA and Unruh Act case.
It is a single district-court order, not a published opinion, and it carries no precedential weight; Arroyo remains the controlling authority. The order leaves open whether Plaintiff or his counsel are high-frequency litigants, whether the court will ultimately decline jurisdiction, whether the Unruh Act claim has merit, and how the ADA claim will proceed. All of those depend on Plaintiff's response.