Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leemanuel Weilch filed this action against Yan Luan and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, assigned case number CV 26-12122 PA (AJRx). The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. On October 30, 2026, the court issued one-page civil minutes reflecting an in-chambers order to show cause; the minutes list no attorneys present for either plaintiffs or defendants.
The court stated that it appears to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order did not decide the merits of the ADA allegations, determine liability under the Unruh Act, or dismiss any claim. Instead, it addressed whether the state-law claims should remain in federal court through the court's discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.
The order also invoked California's high-frequency-litigant provisions, requiring sworn factual disclosures from both the plaintiff and his counsel, which frames the show-cause response as more than a routine jurisdictional brief.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Percy Anderson ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted in the complaint, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court explained that the supplemental-jurisdiction statute reflects the understanding that a federal court should consider and weigh, in each case and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which itself quoted Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988).
The order specifies what the response must contain. In responding, plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order requires this information from plaintiff and counsel; it does not itself resolve their litigant status.
Weilch must file his response by no later than November 13, 2026. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims and dismissing those claims pursuant to § 1367(c). These are stated potential consequences of noncompliance, not relief already granted, and the order dismissed nothing.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered Weilch to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act and any other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Weilch seeks to recover.
- Both Weilch and his counsel must submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts relevant to whether they meet the "high-frequency litigant" definition in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The response is due by November 13, 2026; an untimely or inadequate response could, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or to dismissal of the state-law claims after the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
- The order did not adjudicate the underlying ADA or Unruh Act allegations and did not dismiss any claim.
Why It Matters
The order places the immediate burden on the plaintiff to address the discretionary factors governing supplemental jurisdiction and to provide sworn information relevant to California's high-frequency-litigant provisions. It treats the state-law claims separately from the federal ADA claim, which remains before the court, so the show-cause proceeding concerns only whether the Unruh Act and any other state-law claims stay in federal court.
The practical stakes extend beyond a routine briefing requirement because the court expressly identified dismissal of the entire action without prejudice as one possible consequence of noncompliance; the alternative would preserve the federal ADA claim while ending federal adjudication of claims over which the court declines supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c).