Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bernard Taruc filed a complaint against Douglas W. Shoemaker in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, docketed as No. 2:26-cv-12598-PA-AYP. The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. On October 30, 2026, Judge Percy Anderson issued civil minutes (Document 11) recording the proceedings as "IN CHAMBERS — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE," with no attorneys present for either plaintiffs or defendants.
The court observed that it appears to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This was a preliminary observation: the order did not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act allegations, did not dismiss any claim, and did not make a final jurisdictional determination. Instead, it directed Taruc to explain in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and to supply specified supporting information by a fixed deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied on the principle that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which itself quotes Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), 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 order specifies what the response must contain. Taruc must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Taruc and his counsel must also support their responses with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due no later than November 13, 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 in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, if any, and dismissing those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). These are stated potential consequences of noncompliance, not relief already granted by the order.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered a written show-cause response justifying the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- Taruc must state the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover in his response.
- Taruc and his counsel must submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury addressing the facts relevant to California's high-frequency-litigant definition in Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The filing deadline is November 13, 2026, and an untimely or inadequate response may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice.
- Alternatively, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss only the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
The order places the burden on Taruc and his counsel to provide both a legal justification for exercising supplemental jurisdiction and sworn factual information bearing on the state-law claims. The required damages disclosure and high-frequency-litigant declarations are express components of the response, not optional supporting material, and the court tied the jurisdictional inquiry to the statutory factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.
No claim was dismissed by this order, and the court did not resolve the underlying disability-discrimination allegations. Its immediate effect is to set a compliance deadline of November 13, 2026, and to identify the possible jurisdictional and case-dispositive consequences if the required response is late or inadequate.