Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Nely Del Carmen Osorio Franco, doing business as El Churrasco Salvadoreño, and other defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, and other provisions of California law. The complaint invoked supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
On October 29, 2026, the district court issued an order to show cause expressly directing the plaintiff to show why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. After reviewing the complaint and the docket, the court set briefing on whether to retain or decline jurisdiction over those claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of right, and that district courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation. It noted that California enacted heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015, reforms aimed at the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to sidestep those state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum, the court observed that many district courts, including itself, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction.
Applying that framework, the court found that a review of the docket in the district shows that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which he has advanced construction-related accessibility claims. The court stated that in a California Superior Court, the plaintiff would be deemed a high-frequency litigant, and that California's legislative enactments confirm the state has a substantial interest in the case. The court therefore ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The court directed the plaintiff to file a response, not to exceed ten pages, by Thursday, November 12, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and presenting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury with evidence necessary to determine whether the plaintiff meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) and (2). The court warned that failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The defendant was permitted to file a response of up to ten pages by Thursday, November 19, 2026, after which the matter will be taken under submission and a written order will issue.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law Unruh Act and other California claims in an ADA accessibility case.
- The court found that the plaintiff has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in the district in the year before filing, which would qualify him as a high-frequency litigant in California state court.
- The court reasoned that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would let high-frequency plaintiffs circumvent California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fees by suing in federal court.
- The plaintiff must file a response of up to ten pages by November 12, 2026, stating the statutory damages sought and submitting a perjury-signed declaration on his high-frequency litigant status.
- Failure to respond timely may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and the defendant may respond by November 19, 2026.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates a continuing practice among California federal district courts of scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims brought by serial plaintiffs. By invoking California's high-frequency litigant reforms, the court signaled that federal forums should not become a means of avoiding state-imposed pleading and fee requirements designed to curb abusive construction-related accessibility litigation.
The decision is interlocutory and does not dismiss any claims; instead, it places the burden on the plaintiff to justify retention of the state-law claims and to disclose his litigation history and damages demand. The outcome will turn on the parties' responses, after which the court will issue a written order.