Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey, who requires the use of a wheelchair while traveling in public, filed suit against RADC Enterprises, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged that the defendants' facilities impose physical barriers that impede his access, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Act, among other claims.
The Unruh Act is a California civil rights statute that allows plaintiffs to recover statutory damages, and it is frequently paired with ADA claims in accessibility litigation. Because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, the court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, and district courts may decline to exercise it for a number of valid reasons codified in § 1367(c).
The court's order to show cause, issued on October 13, 2026, by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., directed Pumphrey to explain within 14 days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and dismiss it without prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied heavily on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), which addressed the interplay between federal supplemental jurisdiction and California's 2012 and 2015 amendments to the Unruh Act. Those amendments were designed to protect businesses from abusive litigation by high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related accessibility claims. The Ninth Circuit explained in Arroyo that the amendments had the unintended consequence of shifting ADA cases seeking Unruh Act statutory damages from state courts to federal courts, circumventing the state legislature's goals and rendering the new statutory requirements largely toothless.
The Arroyo court held that these circumstances are 'exceptional' within the meaning of § 1367(c)(4) and potentially justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims. However, in Arroyo itself, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction because the district court had waited until after granting summary judgment on the ADA claim, thereby effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim before invoking the comity interest. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had waited too long.
Judge Blumenfeld distinguished the present case from Arroyo on that critical timing point, noting that this case is still at a very early stage and the court has not yet addressed or adjudicated the merits of any of Pumphrey'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. The court ordered Pumphrey to show cause in writing within 14 days why the claim should not be dismissed without prejudice, and required his response to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to include declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine whether Pumphrey and his counsel satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If Pumphrey fails to respond within 14 days, the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order of the court.
Key Takeaways
- Federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit have discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims paired with ADA claims, based on the exceptional circumstances identified in Arroyo v. Rosas.
- The timing of the decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction is critical: a court that waits until after adjudicating the merits of the federal claim, as happened in Arroyo, risks reversal for waiting too long to invoke the comity interest.
- Plaintiffs who bring ADA and Unruh Act claims in federal court in California should be prepared to demonstrate that they and their counsel do not qualify as 'high-frequency litigants' under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1)–(2).
- A dismissal without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4) does not extinguish the Unruh Act claim but effectively requires the plaintiff to refile it in California state court, where the legislature's procedural reforms apply.
- The order to show cause mechanism allows the court to raise the supplemental jurisdiction issue early in the case, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to respond before the claim is dismissed.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the ongoing tension between federal courts and California's efforts to curb abusive accessibility litigation through procedural reforms to the Unruh Act. The Ninth Circuit's Arroyo decision gave district courts a doctrinal basis for declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims, and this order demonstrates how district courts are applying that authority proactively at the earliest stages of litigation.
For plaintiffs and their counsel, the order signals that bringing combined ADA and Unruh Act claims in federal court carries a significant risk that the state-law claim will be dismissed, requiring the plaintiff to litigate in state court where the high-frequency litigant requirements and other procedural hurdles apply. For defendants, the order provides a potential avenue to seek early dismissal of state-law claims that carry statutory damages exposure.