Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against 8th St Smoke Shop and other defendants, alleging 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.
Upon reviewing the complaint, the district court examined whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of the plaintiff's right, citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, and that district courts should weigh the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation when deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 for plaintiffs and law firms that have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. The court observed that these reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims, and that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum. Many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction in cited decisions.
A review of the docket in this District showed that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Santibanez had filed more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims. In a California Superior Court, he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant, and the court concluded that California's recent legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in the case.
The court therefore ordered Santibanez to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. He must file a response not exceeding ten pages on or before November 12, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover and presenting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury providing the evidence necessary to determine whether he meets the high-frequency litigant definition in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The defendant may also file a response not exceeding ten pages on or before November 19, 2026. Upon receipt of the response(s), the matter will be taken under submission, and a written order will issue.
Key Takeaways
- District courts have discretion, not an obligation, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage.
- California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fee target plaintiffs and law firms that bring large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act.
- A plaintiff who has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in the one-year period before filing may be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California state court.
- Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- After the parties' responses are filed, the court will take the matter under submission and issue a written order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how a federal court in California applies the discretionary framework of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to construction-related accessibility claims brought by a plaintiff who would qualify as a high-frequency litigant in state court, where California's heightened pleading requirements and fees apply. By requiring Santibanez to justify supplemental jurisdiction, the court signaled that a federal forum should not be used to side-step those state-law requirements.
The order also underscores the tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and state procedural rules in ADA and Unruh Act litigation, and it specifies the showings—the amount of statutory damages sought and a sworn declaration on high-frequency litigant status—that the court will consider before deciding whether the state-law claims remain in federal court.