Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey filed suit against David William Barber, doing business as Dave's Hair Loft, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged 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. The complaint invoked supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
Upon review of the complaint, the district court examined whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, and that district courts should consider the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation when deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims.
The court observed that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 for plaintiffs and law firms that have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. These reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court determined that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency plaintiffs would permit those plaintiffs to side-step California's state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum. The court noted that many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction.
A review of the docket in the Central District showed that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Pumphrey had filed more than ten actions in which he advanced construction-related accessibility claims. The court concluded that in a California Superior Court, Pumphrey would be deemed a high-frequency litigant, and that California's recent legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in this case.
The court ordered Pumphrey to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Pumphrey was directed to file a response not to exceed ten pages by October 20, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and presenting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury providing evidence necessary to determine if he meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). The court warned that failure to file a timely response may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendants were permitted to file a response not to exceed ten pages by October 27, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Federal district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, particularly when exercising such jurisdiction would allow plaintiffs to evade state-law procedural requirements.
- California has imposed heightened pleading requirements and fees for high-frequency litigants who bring large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act.
- A plaintiff who files more than ten construction-related accessibility lawsuits in one year may be deemed a high-frequency litigant under California law, triggering special procedural requirements.
- District courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law accessibility claims when doing so would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to circumvent state-law requirements by litigating in federal court.
- Failure to respond to an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction may result in dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
This order reflects ongoing tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction doctrine and California's efforts to regulate high-frequency litigants who bring construction-related accessibility claims. By requiring the plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined, the court signaled its skepticism about allowing federal courts to be used as a forum to avoid state-law procedural safeguards.
The order demonstrates that district courts will scrutinize a plaintiff's litigation history and may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the plaintiff's filing pattern suggests an attempt to circumvent state-law requirements designed to address abusive litigation practices.