Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
United African-Asian Abilities Club, suing on behalf of itself and its members, brought this action against Cleon Street Partners, LLC and other defendants in the Central District of California. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and other California provisions. It invokes supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
On October 29, 2026, District Judge John A. Kronstadt issued an order to show cause focused on whether the federal court should retain those state-law claims. The order did not dismiss any claim or decide the merits of the accessibility allegations. Instead, it identified a jurisdictional question arising from the relationship between the federal claims and the state-law claims and directed the parties to address it through written submissions.
The court's inquiry centered on California's legislative reforms targeting high-frequency construction-related accessibility litigation. The order explained that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015. These measures were designed to address the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of such claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction extends to related claims forming part of the same case or controversy, but characterized the doctrine as discretionary rather than a plaintiff's right. It identified judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity as considerations relevant throughout the litigation. The order then discussed California measures imposing heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims and a high-frequency litigant fee for plaintiffs and law firms bringing large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims.
Relying on its docket review, the court stated that United African-Asian Abilities Club and James Lee had each been a plaintiff in more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims during the year before the complaint was filed. It concluded that they would be deemed high-frequency litigants in California Superior Court and reasoned that accepting supplemental jurisdiction could allow such plaintiffs to bypass state requirements by using a federal forum. The court therefore ordered plaintiffs to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined, rather than immediately dismissing the state-law claims.
Plaintiffs must file a response of no more than ten pages by November 12, 2026, together with a declaration signed under penalty of perjury providing evidence bearing on whether they meet California's high-frequency litigant definition. The order warns that failure to respond timely may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice through declination of supplemental jurisdiction. Defendant may file a response of up to ten pages by November 19, 2026. After receiving the responses, the court will take the matter under submission and issue a written order.
Key Takeaways
- The order requires plaintiffs to justify continued federal supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims; it does not yet dismiss those claims.
- The court's concern is that federal supplemental jurisdiction could allow high-frequency accessibility plaintiffs to avoid California's special pleading and fee requirements.
- A docket review found that the named organization and James Lee each had more than ten relevant accessibility actions in the preceding year.
- Plaintiffs must submit both a limited response and evidence under penalty of perjury addressing the statutory high-frequency litigant definition.
- A failure to respond timely could lead to dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice, while the court will decide the issue after the briefing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a federal court can examine supplemental jurisdiction on its own initiative before resolving the underlying accessibility claims. Its immediate effect is procedural: the state-law claims remain subject to a show-cause process, and any dismissal contemplated by the order would be without prejudice.
The order also ties the jurisdictional inquiry to California's effort to regulate high-frequency construction-related accessibility litigation. By requiring evidence about the plaintiffs' filing history, the court placed the statutory litigant definition and comity concerns at the center of the forthcoming decision rather than treating supplemental jurisdiction as automatic.