Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cesar Acevedo's complaint seeks injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, along with other state-law claims. The order identifies supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The October 9, 2026 civil minutes were issued in chambers by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the Central District of California; no attorneys were present.
The court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons listed in § 1367(c). It cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which permits district courts to decline jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because using federal court to evade California's Unruh Act reforms can present a very substantial threat to federal-state comity. The order does not decide whether those concerns require declining jurisdiction here; instead, it seeks information needed to evaluate that question.
The court emphasized its sua sponte obligation to confirm subject matter jurisdiction, citing Nevada v. Bank of America Corp. and Snell v. Cleveland, Inc. for the proposition that a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time during the pendency of the action. The order to show cause is therefore framed as an aid to the court's jurisdictional duty rather than a response to any party's motion.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Fitzgerald ordered Acevedo to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and his other state-law claims. The response must state the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act and provide sufficient facts for the court to determine whether Acevedo or his counsel meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) and (2). Those facts must be presented in declarations signed under penalty of perjury.
The response is due on or before October 23, 2026. The court warned that failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Alternatively, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismiss that claim under § 1367(c). The order therefore sets a jurisdictional briefing requirement and identifies possible consequences; it does not itself dismiss any claim or finally resolve supplemental jurisdiction.
The order is interlocutory and procedural in nature. It imposes no immediate adverse merits ruling, but it creates a mandatory compliance obligation with a specific deadline and a clear warning of potential dismissal consequences for noncompliance.
Key Takeaways
- The court required a written explanation for retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
- Acevedo must disclose the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages he seeks.
- Declarations under penalty of perjury must supply facts bearing on whether the plaintiff or his counsel is a high-frequency litigant under the cited California statute.
- The response deadline is October 23, 2026.
- An untimely or inadequate response could lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the Unruh Act claim after supplemental jurisdiction is declined.
Why It Matters
The order applies the court's independent obligation to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction and focuses specifically on the discretionary decision whether to retain state-law claims associated with an ADA case. Its requested information connects that inquiry to statutory damages and California's high-frequency-litigant provisions, while leaving the ultimate jurisdictional decision open.
For litigants, the immediate consequence is a demanding compliance deadline rather than an adverse merits ruling. The warning makes an adequate, declaration-supported response important because the court expressly reserved both action-wide dismissal without prejudice and claim-specific dismissal as possible outcomes.