Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Clifton Walker filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting 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. The matter was assigned to Judge Percy Anderson and proceeded as Case No. 2:26-cv-12661.
On October 30, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order to show cause. The court observed that it appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and over any other state-law claim plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order did not resolve any claim on the merits; it instead required plaintiff to justify continued federal jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The procedural posture is therefore a pre-answer, in-chambers screening step: the federal ADA injunctive claim supplies the apparent federal-question anchor, while the Unruh Act damages claim and any other state-law claims are present only if the court chooses to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
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). In explaining that directive, the court quoted City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), for the principle that a federal court should consider and weigh, at every stage of litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
The court further directed plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages plaintiff seeks to recover. It also required plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel to 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 court set a response deadline of November 13, 2026. It warned that failure to timely or adequately respond could, 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 and dismissing any such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court did not dismiss any claim; it ordered plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims should be exercised.
- The show-cause response must be in writing and is due by November 13, 2026.
- Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought in response to the order.
- Plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must submit declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether they qualify as 'high-frequency litigants' under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- Failure to timely or adequately respond may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
This order reflects a district court's early scrutiny of supplemental jurisdiction in an ADA accessibility case pairing a federal injunctive claim with a state statutory damages claim. By invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and California's high-frequency-litigant provisions, the court signaled concern about whether the state-law damages claim belongs in federal court and placed the burden on plaintiff to justify retaining it.
The order also illustrates the procedural gatekeeping that can occur when federal-question jurisdiction rests on an ADA claim while state-law claims are appended: the entire action remains at risk if the plaintiff does not adequately justify supplemental jurisdiction, disclose the damages sought, and address the high-frequency-litigant inquiry.