Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias sued Frances Kuhnle and others 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 51-53, and asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1367. The order does not describe the facts of the alleged access violation, and it resolves nothing on the merits of either claim.
The court starts from the premise that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not a plaintiff's right. Section 1367(c) lets a district court decline jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons. The court adds that it must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of a case.
The order then describes California's response to disability access litigation. In 2012 the state adopted a heightened pleading standard requiring a verified complaint for construction-related accessibility claims, stating the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date of encounter or deterrence. In 2015 it imposed a high-frequency litigant fee in response to the special and unique circumstances presented by certain plaintiffs and law firms filing an outsized number of Unruh Act suits. The court notes that district courts in California have found fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access Unruh claims. It cites Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), which declined jurisdiction over a high-frequency litigant's claim to avoid an end-around of the state pleading rules.
The Court’s Holding
This is an interim order, not a ruling on supplemental 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 is due fourteen days from the order, and the docket sets the deadline at November 10, 2026. The court has not yet declined jurisdiction, dismissed anything, or decided whether the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff and counsel must also support the response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that provide 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).
If the response is untimely or inadequate, the court warns it may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims and dismiss them without further notice under section 1367(c). The order does not say whether such a dismissal would be with or without prejudice. The court may set a hearing after reviewing the responses if necessary. The order does not address the ADA injunctive relief claim.
Key Takeaways
- The order is an interim show-cause directive, so it decides nothing on the merits and does not yet decline supplemental jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff must state the statutory damages sought and file declarations under penalty of perjury from both the plaintiff and counsel bearing on high-frequency litigant status.
- A response is due fourteen days after the order, and the docket sets the date at November 10, 2026; a late or inadequate response risks dismissal of the state claim without further notice.
- Only the Unruh Act claim and related state claims are at stake, and the order does not address the ADA injunctive relief claim.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District judge can screen ADA and Unruh Act complaints at the outset, using the discretion in section 1367(c) and comity toward California's pleading and fee rules aimed at abusive access litigation. Requiring the damages figure and sworn litigation-history declarations lets the court decide on a developed record whether the state damages claim belongs in federal court.
It is a nonprecedential in-chambers minute order rather than a published opinion, and it cites out-of-district authority as persuasive, not binding. Its effect is procedural. The outcome turns on the plaintiff's response, and if jurisdiction is declined the Unruh claim would not proceed in this court.