Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Robert Mena filed this action on October 26, 2026, against Minh Due Quach and Does 1 through 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserts five claims: injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, damages under California's Disabled Persons Act, damages and injunctive relief under California Health and Safety Code section 19955, and negligence. Mena maintained that the court had what he called 'pendant [sic] jurisdiction' over the state-law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
On October 30, 2026, District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadant issued an in-chambers order to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims. The order did not dismiss those claims or finally decide whether supplemental jurisdiction would be exercised. Instead, it laid out the discretionary framework of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), identified comity concerns arising from the interaction between the ADA and California's disability-access laws, and directed Mena to provide information bearing on whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California Civil Procedure Code section 425.55.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that authority to hear supplemental claims does not require a district court to exercise that authority in every case, quoting the Supreme Court's teaching that supplemental jurisdiction is 'a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice.' It identified the four statutory grounds for declining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c): novel or complex state-law issues, state claims that substantially predominate over the original-jurisdiction claims, dismissal of all original-jurisdiction claims, and exceptional circumstances presenting other compelling reasons. The decision must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation.
The order then focused on the unusual relationship between the ADA and the Unruh Act. A private ADA plaintiff may obtain only prospective injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act relies on the ADA's substantive rules but expands the remedies available in a private action. Drawing on Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), the court described concerns that ADA-Unruh litigation can target small businesses through boilerplate complaints and quick cash settlements rather than correction of accessibility violations. It recounted California's responsive reforms: verified, fact-specific pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, additional disclosure obligations for high-frequency litigants, and a special high-frequency-litigant filing fee.
Relying on decisions such as Whitaker v. Mac and Schutza v. Cuddeback warning that federal supplemental jurisdiction can circumvent those state restrictions, the court ordered Mena to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims. His response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations from Mena and his counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, supplying all facts necessary to determine whether either meets the high-frequency-litigant definition, including the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed in the preceding 12 months. The response is due no later than 14 days from the date of the order, and an untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court has not yet dismissed Mena's state-law claims; it has ordered him to justify in writing why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over them.
- Mena must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks in his response to the order.
- Mena and his counsel must submit declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, addressing whether either meets California's definition of a high-frequency litigant under Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)-(2).
- The requested filing information includes construction-related accessibility claims brought by Mena and matters in which his counsel represented high-frequency-litigant plaintiffs during the preceding 12 months.
- The response is due within 14 days, and failure to respond timely and adequately may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
The order applies the comity analysis associated with Arroyo v. Rosas to an individual disability-access case at an early procedural stage. It treats California's pleading and filing controls as relevant to the discretionary supplemental-jurisdiction inquiry rather than assuming that a federal ADA claim automatically brings related state damages claims into federal court.
The required declarations make filing history and statutory damages central to the forthcoming jurisdictional decision. The immediate outcome is a demand for case-specific information, while the ultimate disposition of the Unruh Act and related state-law claims remains open.