Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Luna sued Roma Deli, Inc. and other defendants in the Central District of California. According to the court's description, the complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. These are the plaintiff's allegations. The order makes no findings about whether any violation occurred.
On October 28, 2026, Judge Percy Anderson issued an in-chambers minute order styled as an order to show cause. The court stated that it appears it has only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and over any other state-law claim the plaintiff may have alleged, under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a). It relied on City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. Those cases say a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
No attorneys appeared, and no party had yet been heard on the question. The order is a case-management directive issued on the court's own initiative, not a ruling on a motion.
The Court’s Holding
The order does not decide whether the court will keep the Unruh Act claim. It directs the plaintiff to show cause in writing, by November 11, 2026, why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim and any other state-law claim in the complaint. The court cited 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c) as the basis for the inquiry.
The response must state the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's 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 each meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court warned that a failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Alternatively, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any other state-law claims and dismiss those claims under section 1367(c). These are possible consequences only. Nothing has been dismissed, and any dismissal of the kind described would be without prejudice rather than a judgment on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural show-cause directive, not a ruling on the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims, and it has no precedential effect beyond this case.
- The court said it appears to have only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim, and it will weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
- The plaintiff must file a written response by November 11, 2026, and must state the amount of statutory damages he seeks.
- The plaintiff and his counsel must each submit declarations under penalty of perjury supplying the facts relevant to high-frequency litigant status under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- If the response is late or inadequate, the court may dismiss the whole action without prejudice or decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state-law claims; the ADA injunctive claim and the court's ultimate decision remain open.
Why It Matters
The order shows a federal judge asking, at the outset of an ADA case with a companion Unruh Act damages claim, whether the state claim belongs in federal court. By requiring disclosure of the statutory damages sought and of the plaintiff's and counsel's litigation history, the court is collecting the facts it needs to apply section 1367(c) and the comity concerns it cites. The order does not say how the court will resolve those concerns.
Because this is a single-case minute order, it should be read as a statement of what this court required here. It is not a holding about ADA or Unruh Act practice generally. What happens next depends on the plaintiff's response, and the court has not indicated whether it will retain or dismiss the state-law claim.