Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Omar Luna filed a complaint asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code § 19955 et seq., and a general negligence theory. The court recognized it had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the court emphasized that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, and district courts may decline to exercise it for valid reasons codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The court surveyed California's legislative efforts to curb abusive disability access litigation. These include a 2012 heightened pleading standard requiring verified complaints with specific facts about barriers encountered and dates of each encounter (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)), and a 2015 "high-frequency litigant fee" and disclosure requirements for plaintiffs who have filed 10 or more construction-related accessibility complaints in the preceding 12 months (Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2), § 425.50(a)(4)(A)). The court also noted that high-frequency litigants must state whether the complaint is filed by or on behalf of a high-frequency litigant, the number of prior complaints, the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant's business, and the reason the individual desired to access the business.
The Court’s Holding
The court found that California's distinctive statutory scheme — including heightened pleading standards and high-frequency litigant provisions — reflects a substantial state interest in deterring unverified disability discrimination claims. Citing Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), and Ninth Circuit precedent in Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), and Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), the court concluded that exercising supplemental jurisdiction could render California's anti-abuse framework ineffectual, constituting "exceptional circumstances" under § 1367(c)(4).
Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing within ten days why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and be supported by declarations under penalty of perjury establishing whether plaintiff and counsel meet the definition of "high-frequency litigant" under California law. Failure to respond adequately may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims.
Key Takeaways
- The court is actively scrutinizing whether plaintiffs in ADA/Unruh Act cases are using federal court to circumvent California's heightened pleading and high-frequency litigant requirements.
- Ninth Circuit precedent supports declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law disability access claims when doing so would undermine California's legislative scheme to combat vexatious litigation.
- Plaintiffs and their counsel must now disclose under penalty of perjury whether they qualify as "high-frequency litigants" under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2) and provide the statutory damages amount sought.
- The order to show cause is a substantive screening mechanism that may lead to dismissal of all state-law claims if the plaintiff cannot justify federal court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
- This approach reflects a growing trend among California federal courts to defer to state comity interests in the disability access litigation context.
Why It Matters
The order signals that courts in the Central District of California will closely police the boundary between federal ADA claims and state-law Unruh Act claims, particularly where plaintiffs or counsel have a history of filing numerous accessibility lawsuits. By requiring sworn declarations about high-frequency litigant status, the court creates a factual record that could support dismissal of state claims under § 1367(c)(4) based on comity and fairness.
This procedural step may deter forum-shopping and encourage compliance with California's anti-abuse framework, while preserving the federal ADA claim. The order also illustrates how district courts are operationalizing Ninth Circuit guidance in Vo v. Choi and Arroyo v. Rosas to screen disability access cases at an early stage.