Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Marco Ruiz filed a complaint against La Tropicana Market Inc. and other defendants asserting a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law claims for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53), Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Plaintiff invoked the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the state law claims. The matter came before Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue on the Court's own initiative to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The Court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, and that district courts may decline jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) for several reasons, including when a claim raises novel or complex state law issues, substantially predominates over federal claims, or in exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons. The Court surveyed California's legislative efforts to combat abusive disability access litigation, including the 2012 heightened pleading standard under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50 requiring verified complaints with specific facts about barriers encountered, and the 2015 high-frequency litigant fee under Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5 and Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55 targeting plaintiffs and law firms filing excessive numbers of such lawsuits.
The Court cited Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), where a district court declined supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim brought by a high-frequency litigant, finding it improper to allow federal court to serve as an end-around to California's pleading requirements. The Court recognized that California has a substantial interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims and that comity and fairness counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access claims under the Unruh Act when doing so would undermine state procedural safeguards.
The Court’s Holding
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to demonstrate in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claims asserted in the Complaint. The Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to provide declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, supplying all facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff and his counsel satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
The required declarations must include, but are not limited to: (1) the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve months preceding the filing of the present claim, and (2) the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff's counsel has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the filing of the present claim. The Court set a deadline of November 3, 2026, for Plaintiff's written response.
The Court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond to the Order to Show Cause may result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claims without further notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court also noted it may set a hearing on the Order to Show Cause after reviewing the parties' responses, if necessary.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California are scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing California's heightened pleading standards and high-frequency litigant statutes.
- Plaintiffs and their counsel must now provide sworn declarations detailing their litigation history to determine if they qualify as high-frequency litigants under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55.
- Courts may dismiss state law disability access claims without prejudice if plaintiffs fail to justify supplemental jurisdiction, forcing such claims into state court where California's procedural safeguards apply.
- The Order reflects a growing trend of federal courts deferring to California's policy choices in disability access litigation through comity and discretionary jurisdiction doctrines.
- Defendants in ADA/Unruh Act cases should be aware that courts may sua sponte examine supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, particularly where construction-related accessibility claims are involved.
Why It Matters
This Order to Show Cause exemplifies the tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and state procedural reforms targeting serial disability access litigation. By requiring plaintiffs to prove they are not high-frequency litigants, the Court enforces California's legislative intent to curb abusive filings while preserving federal ADA claims. The decision signals that federal courts will not serve as a workaround for plaintiffs seeking to avoid California's verified complaint requirements and litigant fees. This approach may reduce forum shopping and encourage compliance with state procedural rules, but it also raises questions about the uniformity of federal court treatment of pendent state claims across districts.
The practical effect is that plaintiffs filing combined ADA and Unruh Act claims in the Central District of California must now be prepared to disclose their litigation history under oath at the outset. Counsel representing such plaintiffs face similar scrutiny. This procedural hurdle may deter marginal claims and promote early resolution of jurisdictional issues, but it also adds a layer of fact-intensive inquiry before the merits of state law claims can be addressed. The Court's reliance on Schutza suggests this practice may spread to other California federal courts.