Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jorge Luna sued Pho So 1 Reseda Inc. and other defendants in the Central District of California. According to the order, the complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, together with claims for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. These are allegations only, and the order makes no findings about any barrier or liability. The complaint asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
In a civil minute order issued in chambers on October 19, 2026, Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue raised the question on the court's own initiative. The order explains that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, and that a federal court should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage. It quotes section 1367(c), which permits declining jurisdiction when a claim raises a novel or complex state law issue, substantially predominates, follows dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or presents exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons.
The order then describes California's response to high-volume disability access litigation: a 2012 heightened pleading standard requiring verified complaints that state the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred, with dates, and a high-frequency litigant fee adopted in 2015. It notes that district courts in California have found that fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access Unruh Act claims, citing Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017).
The Court’s Holding
The order does not decide whether supplemental jurisdiction will be exercised, and it dismisses nothing. It is a procedural order to show cause, not a final judgment. The court directs Plaintiff to explain in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim in the complaint, applying section 1367(c).
Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks. Plaintiff and counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury giving all facts needed to decide whether they are high-frequency litigants under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2). That includes the number of construction-related accessibility claims Plaintiff filed in the twelve months before this action and the number in which counsel represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in that period.
The response was due by November 3, 2026. The court warned that a failure to respond timely or adequately may lead it to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims and dismiss them without further notice. It may set a hearing after reviewing the responses. The ADA injunctive relief claim is not addressed and remains pending, and the materials provided do not show whether a response was filed.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a show-cause directive, not a ruling; whether the court keeps or declines the state-law claims remains open.
- Plaintiff must state the statutory damages sought and file sworn declarations from himself and counsel about recent construction-related accessibility filings.
- The court points to California's verified pleading rule and high-frequency litigant provisions as bearing on fairness and comity, but it makes no finding that Plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant.
- An inadequate or late response may lead to dismissal of the state-law claims without further notice; the order does not say whether any such dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
- The minute order is unpublished and has no precedential weight; it reflects one judge's case-management approach.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District magistrate judge uses an early show-cause order to test whether state-law damages claims accompanying an ADA injunctive claim belong in federal court. Counsel in such cases should be ready to document litigation history, quantify statutory damages, and explain why proceeding in federal court does not sidestep California's pleading requirements.
Because it is unpublished, merely preliminary, and relies on other district court decisions such as Schutza, the order is useful mainly as an illustration of practice. The actual decision on supplemental jurisdiction depends on the response to the order, which the provided materials do not include.