Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jerry Ong's complaint seeks injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, California's Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54-55.32, and negligence. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela stated that supplemental jurisdiction over the three state-law claims appeared to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but issued an order to show cause rather than making a final retention decision. The October 26, 2026 order was entered in the Central District of California in Case No. 8:26-cv-01669-CV (JDEx).
The court explained that deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction requires weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation, quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). It then described California measures addressing disability-access litigation: a 2012 heightened pleading standard requiring verified construction-access complaints to identify the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred, with each date, see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a), and a 2015 high-frequency litigant fee under Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5 responding to plaintiffs and law firms filing unusually large numbers of Unruh Act cases.
The court also noted that some federal district courts in California have declined supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access Unruh Act claims as a matter of comity and deference to California's substantial interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims, citing Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), and the Ninth Circuit's holding in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), that California's distinctive state-law rules can present exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Ong to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). His response must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Ong and his counsel must also submit declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the high-frequency litigant definitions in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due no later than ten days after the date of the order.
The order did not dismiss any claim or finally decline jurisdiction. It warned that a late or inadequate response could, without further warning, result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the three state-law claims and dismissing them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The federal ADA claim was not included in that warning. As support for its concerns, the court cited district-court decisions treating fairness and comity as reasons not to let federal litigation bypass California's pleading requirements, and the Ninth Circuit's approval of exceptional-circumstances reasoning in Arroyo v. Rosas.
Key Takeaways
- The court required a written justification for retaining the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims, but did not yet dismiss them or finally decline supplemental jurisdiction.
- Ong must state the amount of statutory damages he seeks and file the response within ten days of the order.
- Both Ong and his counsel must provide declarations signed under penalty of perjury containing all facts relevant to California's high-frequency litigant definitions.
- The court connected its jurisdictional inquiry to comity and to California's verified-pleading and high-frequency-litigant fee rules for disability-access litigation.
- An untimely or inadequate response could result in dismissal of the specified state-law claims without further warning, while the ADA claim remains outside that contemplated dismissal.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a federal court can examine supplemental jurisdiction before adjudicating the merits when state disability-access claims may implicate California's efforts to control abusive construction-access litigation. Its immediate effect is procedural: Ong must supply legal justification, damages information, and sworn factual declarations from himself and his counsel. The court's reliance on Schutza v. Cuddeback and Arroyo v. Rosas signals that California's distinctive disability-access rules may constitute exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
The ruling leaves the ultimate jurisdictional decision open. It identifies the state-law claims at risk and the consequences of noncompliance, while not including the federal ADA claim in the contemplated dismissal. Requiring both Ong and his counsel to address high-frequency litigant status reflects the court's concern that the litigation may be part of the pattern California's heightened pleading and fee provisions were designed to address.