Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 26, 2026, Plaintiff Dena Peterson filed this action against Defendants Pride Bakeries I, LLC, Jwmfe Anaheim LLC, and Does 1-10, asserting claims for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, damages under California's Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Plaintiff maintained that the Court had pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice, and that the supplemental jurisdiction statute enumerates situations in which a district court can decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, including when the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law, substantially predominates over the claims within original jurisdiction, or in exceptional circumstances where there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a confluence of California-law rules has created a highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases that threatens federal-state comity. Under the ADA, the only remedy available to a private litigant is prospective injunctive relief, but California's Unruh Act created a state law cause of action that relies on the ADA's substantive rules while expanding available remedies.
The Court’s Holding
The Court observed that California implemented procedural reforms to address concerns that high-frequency litigants may be using the Unruh Act to obtain monetary relief without accompanying adjustments to assure accessibility. In 2012, the Legislature adopted a heightened pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims, requiring a verified complaint with specific facts sufficient to identify the basis of the violation. In 2015, the Legislature imposed additional requirements on high-frequency litigants, including disclosure of the number of similar complaints filed in the prior 12 months and the reasons for being in the geographic area and desiring to access the business.
The Court noted that district courts within California have determined that fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act brought by high-frequency litigants, as doing so would allow plaintiffs to circumvent restrictions California has imposed. The Court cited Ninth Circuit authority holding that declining supplemental jurisdiction on this basis was not an abuse of discretion in the circumstances presented.
The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and support the response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing facts necessary to determine if Plaintiff and counsel meet the definition of high-frequency litigant, including the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff and by counsel's high-frequency litigant clients in the preceding 12 months. Plaintiff must file a response within 14 days, and failure to timely or adequately respond may result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims even when they have the power to exercise it.
- California has enacted heightened pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and additional obligations for high-frequency litigants to curb perceived abuse of disability access laws.
- District courts in California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims by high-frequency litigants to prevent circumvention of state procedural requirements.
- The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that declining supplemental jurisdiction to preserve the effectiveness of California's distinctive legal framework is not an abuse of discretion.
- Plaintiffs asserting Unruh Act claims in federal court may be required to demonstrate why supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate and to disclose their litigation history and that of their counsel.
Why It Matters
This order reflects ongoing tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and California's efforts to regulate disability access litigation through procedural reforms. By requiring the plaintiff to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and to disclose whether she and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants, the Court signaled skepticism about whether federal court is the appropriate forum for state law claims that may be subject to heightened pleading standards in state court.
The order underscores that plaintiffs who file ADA and Unruh Act claims in federal court cannot assume that state law claims will proceed alongside federal claims as a matter of right. Courts may scrutinize whether exercising supplemental jurisdiction would undermine state policy choices and comity interests, particularly in the context of high-frequency disability access litigation.