Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Guardado, who uses a wheelchair while traveling in public, sued Daba Super Corp. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged that the defendants' facilities contained physical barriers impeding his access, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Act, among other authorities. The case was docketed as No. 2:26-cv-12763-SB-RAO.
In its November 2, 2026 order, the court explained that it had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because that claim was closely related to the ADA claim. But the court emphasized that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, not a matter of the plaintiff's right. It identified § 1367(c)(4), which permits declining jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances for other compelling reasons, as the relevant provision.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Arroyo addressed California's 2012 and 2015 Unruh Act amendments intended to protect businesses from abusive construction-related litigation by high-frequency litigants, and the resulting shift of ADA cases seeking Unruh Act statutory damages into federal court. The Ninth Circuit concluded that retaining supplemental jurisdiction in those circumstances could thwart California's reforms and deprive state courts of their role in implementing them, potentially supplying exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
The district court distinguished Arroyo's procedural problem: there, the district court waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim, effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim before declining jurisdiction, and the Ninth Circuit reversed because the comity interest had been invoked too late. Here, by contrast, the case remained at a very early stage and the court had not addressed or adjudicated the merits of any claim. The court therefore stated that this appeared to be a case in which it should decline supplemental jurisdiction to protect Arroyo's comity interests.
The court did not immediately dismiss the Unruh Act claim. Instead, it ordered Guardado to show cause in writing within 14 days after entry of the order why that claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4). His response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts necessary to determine whether he and his counsel meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If he fails to respond timely, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order.
Key Takeaways
- The order requires a written show-cause response within 14 days after entry, rather than immediately dismissing the Unruh Act claim.
- Guardado must state the statutory damages he seeks and support his response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury.
- The requested declarations must provide facts bearing on whether Guardado and his counsel satisfy California's statutory high-frequency-litigant definition.
- The court distinguished Arroyo because no merits adjudication had occurred, making the comity-based jurisdictional question timely at this early stage.
- Failure to respond will result in automatic dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without prejudice and without a further court order.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Arroyo's federal-state comity analysis at the outset of an ADA and Unruh Act case, before the federal court has decided any merits issues. That timing directly addresses the procedural defect that led the Ninth Circuit to reverse the declining of supplemental jurisdiction in Arroyo.
The order also makes the factual record central to the next step: statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status must be addressed through sworn declarations. The ADA claim is not dismissed by this order; the proposed disposition concerns only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any dismissal for nonresponse would be without prejudice.