Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shonna Counter sued Robert Anavian, DPM, in the Central District of California. The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 51 through 53. Because the Unruh Act claim arises under state law, the plaintiff asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. section 1367. These are allegations in the complaint, and the order makes no findings about them.
The court begins with the premise that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not a plaintiff's right, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons. Section 1367(c) lets a district court decline jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, substantially predominates over the federal claims, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons. The court adds that it should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation, quoting Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill.
The order then describes California's response to high-volume disability access litigation. In 2012 the state adopted a heightened pleading standard, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 425.50, requiring a verified complaint that states the specific barriers encountered, or how the plaintiff was deterred, and the date of each encounter or deterrence. In 2015 it imposed a high-frequency litigant fee, Cal. Gov't Code section 70616.5. The court observes that district courts within California have found that fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access Unruh Act claims. It quotes Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017), which declined jurisdiction to avoid an end-around of California's pleading requirements.
The Court’s Holding
This is an in-chambers order to show cause, not a ruling on jurisdiction. The court orders the plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. The response must state the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks. The plaintiff and counsel must support it with declarations under penalty of perjury giving all facts needed to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response is due within fourteen days of the order, which the docket reflects as November 12, 2026. The court warns that a failure to respond timely or adequately may lead it to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act claim and related state claims without further notice under section 1367(c). It may also set a hearing after reviewing the responses. The order does not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims, does not yet decline jurisdiction, and dismisses nothing. Whether the state claim stays in federal court remains open.
Key Takeaways
- Supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim is discretionary, and the court signals that fairness and comity concerns tied to California's disability access reforms may justify declining it.
- The court requires the plaintiff to state the statutory damages sought and to file sworn declarations from the plaintiff and counsel addressing high-frequency litigant status.
- The fourteen-day deadline carries a stated consequence: a late or inadequate response may result in dismissal of the state claims without further notice, though the order does not say whether any dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
- Nothing has been decided on the merits, and the ADA injunctive relief claim is neither addressed nor dismissed by this order.
Why It Matters
The order shows a Central District judge screening a disability access complaint at the outset rather than waiting for a motion. By conditioning retention of the Unruh Act claim on a sworn showing, the court puts California's pleading and fee rules at the center of the comity analysis and treats high-frequency litigant status as relevant to whether a federal forum should hear the damages claim.
It is an unreported minute order in a single case and carries no precedential weight. It is not a holding on whether the Unruh Act claim will be retained, and the outcome depends on the plaintiff's response, including the damages sought and the litigant-status declarations. The cited district court decisions are persuasive authority only. Practitioners may treat the order as an example of the information this court requests in similar cases.