Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case was assigned to Judge Percy Anderson, who issued the order in chambers on October 13, 2026. The complaint also potentially included other state law claims beyond the Unruh Act claim, though the court did not identify them with specificity.
The court observed that it appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claims that plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The court noted that the supplemental jurisdiction statute reflects the understanding that federal courts should consider and weigh the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons. This framework required the court to evaluate whether retaining the state law claims would serve those values before proceeding further.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the complaint, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court required plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought to be recovered. This directive placed the burden on the plaintiff to justify the court's continued exercise of jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The court further ordered that plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). This requirement applied to both the plaintiff and counsel, reflecting the court's interest in assessing whether the litigation pattern implicated the state's high-frequency litigant provisions.
Plaintiff was ordered to file a response to the order to show cause by no later than October 27, 2026. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, with dismissal of such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order made clear that the consequences could extend beyond the state law claims to the entire action.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts must consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims at every stage of litigation, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
- In ADA cases with accompanying Unruh Act claims, courts may require plaintiffs to justify why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state law claims.
- Plaintiffs and their counsel in such cases may be required to submit declarations under penalty of perjury regarding whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
- Failure to adequately respond to an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction can result in dismissal of the entire action or dismissal of the state law claims.
- The court's order to show cause is not a final disposition but a preliminary step that places the burden on the plaintiff to establish the propriety of supplemental jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the scrutiny federal courts in California apply to supplemental state law claims in ADA cases, particularly where statutory damages under the Unruh Act may be sought by high-frequency litigants. The requirement for declarations regarding high-frequency litigant status under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2) demonstrates the court's concern with serial ADA litigation and its willingness to use procedural mechanisms to assess the nature of the litigation.
The order serves as a warning to plaintiffs and counsel that federal courts will actively police the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and may decline to hear state law claims or dismiss entire actions if plaintiffs cannot justify federal court jurisdiction over those claims. By requiring declarations from both plaintiff and counsel, the order also signals that the court may scrutinize the litigation practices of attorneys who repeatedly bring similar claims.