Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias sued Carmen Almaguer and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-12312-JAK-PVC. His complaint alleges 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, and it identifies supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
The court explained that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to claims within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III, but that the doctrine is one of discretion, not of the plaintiff's right, citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966). It added that in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, a court should consider the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation, citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1990).
The order then described California's legislative reforms: in 2012 the state imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims, and in 2015 it imposed a high-frequency litigant fee on plaintiffs and law firms that have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. As detailed in previous orders by this court and other district courts, these statutes impose special requirements on construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency plaintiffs, and they addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of such claims, citing Whitaker v. RCP Belmont Shore LLC and Garibay v. Rodriguez.
The Court’s Holding
The court reasoned that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step California's special state-law requirements by pursuing construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act in a federal forum. It observed that many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on that basis in earlier cases such as Whitaker and Garibay.
A review of the docket in this district showed that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Tapias filed more than ten actions in which he advanced construction-related accessibility claims. The court stated that in a California Superior Court he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant, and it concluded that California's recent legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in the case, citing Perri v. Thrifty Payless, 2019 WL 7882068 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019).
The court therefore ordered Tapias to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. His response may not exceed ten pages and is due on or before November 10, 2026; it must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover and present 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) and (2). Failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendants may also file a response of no more than ten pages on or before November 17, 2026, after which the matter will be taken under submission and a written order will issue.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a show-cause directive, not a dismissal: the state-law claims remain pending while the supplemental-jurisdiction question stays open.
- Tapias's response is limited to ten pages and is due November 10, 2026.
- He must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover.
- He must submit a declaration signed under penalty of perjury supplying evidence relevant to whether he meets California's high-frequency-litigant definition.
- An untimely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); defendants may file their own ten-page response by November 17, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order applies the court's discretionary supplemental-jurisdiction analysis to the interaction between federal ADA litigation and California's construction-related accessibility reforms. Its immediate concern is whether federal adjudication of the related state-law claims would allow a high-frequency litigant to circumvent the heightened pleading and fee requirements that California imposes in its own courts.
The order leaves the jurisdictional question open, requires concrete information about the damages sought and the plaintiff's filing history, and preserves the possibility of dismissal without prejudice rather than deciding the merits of either the federal or the state-law claims.