Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez, who uses a wheelchair while traveling in public, filed suit against Guadalupe Nunez Bermudez and other defendants, alleging that their facilities impose physical barriers that impede his access. The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned case number 2:26-cv-12522-SB-KS.
Because Santibanez's Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the federal court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, the court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of right, and district courts may decline to exercise it for several valid reasons codified in § 1367(c).
The court's order to show cause, issued on October 28, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., directs the plaintiff to explain within 14 days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismiss it without prejudice. The order relies on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which addressed similar circumstances.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that in Arroyo v. Rosas, the Ninth Circuit recognized that California's 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act were intended to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related accessibility claims. Those amendments led to a surge of ADA cases filed in federal court seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Act, effectively circumventing the state legislature's reforms and rendering them largely toothless. The Ninth Circuit held that this shift presented exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4) that could justify declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Although the Ninth Circuit in Arroyo ultimately reversed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction because it had waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim, the court here distinguished that procedural posture. Unlike Arroyo, this case is still at a very early stage, and the court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of the plaintiff's claims. The court stated that this appears to be a case in which it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4) to protect the comity interests identified in Arroyo.
Accordingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing within 14 days why the court should not dismiss without prejudice his Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4). The plaintiff's response must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover and must be supported by declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine if the plaintiff and his counsel satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If the plaintiff fails to file a response within 14 days, the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and the claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order of the court.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims when doing so protects California's legislative reforms aimed at curbing abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants.
- The Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas established that the surge of federal ADA filings seeking Unruh Act statutory damages after California's 2012 and 2015 amendments presents exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- District courts must invoke the comity interest in declining supplemental jurisdiction at an early stage of the case, before adjudicating the merits of the federal claims, to avoid effectively deciding the state-law claim.
- A plaintiff ordered to show cause why an Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and provide declarations establishing whether the plaintiff and counsel meet the statutory definition of high-frequency litigant.
- Failure to respond to a show cause order within the specified deadline will result in automatic dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without prejudice and without further court order.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how federal courts in the Central District of California are applying the Ninth Circuit's Arroyo v. Rosas decision to police the boundary between federal and state jurisdiction in disability access cases. By issuing a show cause order at the outset of the case, the court is following the procedural guidance implicit in Arroyo, which criticized the district court there for waiting too long to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
The requirement that the plaintiff disclose the amount of statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing high-frequency litigant status reflects the court's focus on the specific comity concerns identified in Arroyo. The automatic dismissal provision for non-compliance underscores the seriousness with which the court treats the show cause obligation.