Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jorge Luna filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California asserting claims for damages and injunctive relief arising out of alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), the California Disabled Persons Act, and a theory of negligence. The complaint invokes federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
On October 19, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause sua sponte regarding whether it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims. The Court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), which address circumstances where a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in the interest of justice, comity, and judicial economy.
The order requires Plaintiff to respond in writing by Friday, October 23, 2026. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover, and both Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury. These declarations must provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
The Court’s Holding
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than Friday, October 23, 2026, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel must support their responses with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
The Court warned that failure to respond as ordered will result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The Court is scrutinizing whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims (Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, negligence) alongside a federal ADA claim.
- Plaintiff must disclose the specific amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act.
- Plaintiff and counsel must submit sworn declarations addressing whether Plaintiff qualifies as a 'high-frequency litigant' under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
- Failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause by October 23, 2026, will result in dismissal of state law claims without prejudice.
- The Court relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Arroyo v. Rosas) to justify potential declination of supplemental jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This Order to Show Cause reflects a growing trend in the Central District of California to closely examine ADA/Unruh Act litigation, particularly regarding plaintiffs who may be 'high-frequency litigants' under California law. The Court's demand for sworn declarations on litigant status and statutory damages amounts signals heightened scrutiny of the propriety of supplemental jurisdiction in these cases.
If the Court ultimately declines jurisdiction, the state law claims would be dismissed without prejudice, forcing Plaintiff to pursue them in state court where the high-frequency litigant statute (CCP § 425.55) imposes specific procedural hurdles and potential pre-filing orders. This procedural gatekeeping aims to conserve judicial resources and prevent abuse of the federal forum for state law claims that may be subject to restrictive state statutes.