Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Korttney Elliot’s complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code section 19955 et seq., and a general negligence theory. In this November 3, 2026 in-chambers order, the Central District of California stated that supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims appeared to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). That observation was not a final decision to retain those claims. The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and identified § 1367(c)’s grounds for declining it: novel or complex state-law issues, substantial predominance of state claims, dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, or exceptional circumstances supplying other compelling reasons.
The order then described California measures addressing abuse in disability-access litigation. A 2012 heightened pleading standard requires a plaintiff bringing construction-access claims to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts, including the barriers encountered or deterrence experienced and the date of each encounter or deterrence. California added a high-frequency-litigant fee in 2015. The statutory definition covers a plaintiff who filed at least ten construction-related accessibility complaints during the preceding twelve months and an attorney who represented at least ten high-frequency-litigant plaintiffs in actions resolved during that period. The order also listed required disclosures concerning high-frequency status, prior complaint numbers, and the reasons for being near and seeking access to the defendant’s business.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Vera cited district-court reasoning that fairness and comity can counsel against federal retention of Unruh Act construction-access claims when federal litigation would bypass California’s procedural requirements. Schutza v. Cuddeback supplied the example of preventing a high-frequency litigant from using federal court as an end-around state pleading rules. The court also cited Vo v. Choi and Arroyo v. Rosas as Ninth Circuit decisions affirming this practice. In the quoted Arroyo reasoning, rendering California’s distinctive rules ineffectual supported an exceptional-circumstances determination under § 1367(c)(4). These authorities supplied the order’s rationale; they were not findings that Elliot or counsel had engaged in any particular litigation conduct.
The operative ruling requires Elliot to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and every other state-law claim in the complaint. The response must identify the statutory damages sought. Elliot and counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy California’s high-frequency-litigant definitions. The response is due in ten days. The court warned that a late or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead it to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the affected state-law claims under § 1367(c). The order did not yet dismiss any claim or resolve the ADA claim.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered a written justification for retaining every state-law claim, rather than finally declining supplemental jurisdiction at this stage.
- Elliot must identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn factual information relevant to both plaintiff’s and counsel’s high-frequency-litigant status.
- The response deadline is ten days, and an untimely or inadequate response may result in dismissal of the affected state-law claims without further warning.
- The order relies on comity and California’s procedural safeguards as potential reasons for declining jurisdiction, but makes no finding that Elliot or counsel abused those procedures.
- The federal ADA claim remains part of the complaint, while the future treatment of the Unruh Act, other statutory, and negligence claims remains open.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how a federal court can use an order to show cause to examine whether retaining state disability-access claims would undermine California’s pleading and high-frequency-litigant framework. It connects that inquiry to § 1367(c)’s discretionary grounds and to appellate authority approving comity-based declination in appropriate cases.
The immediate practical consequence is a demanding, sworn response addressing damages and litigation history, not a final merits ruling. The court’s warning places all of the complaint’s state-law theories at risk if the response is late or inadequate, while leaving the jurisdictional decision itself for later.