Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Larry Dunn sued Nahmi, L.L.C., and other defendants in the Central District of California. The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief under 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. Judge Dale S. Fischer observed that it appears the court has only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and over any other state law claim the plaintiff may have alleged, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order does not describe the underlying allegations further and makes no finding about them.
The order recalls that supplemental jurisdiction calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity at every stage of the litigation, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. It then points to California's regime for high-frequency litigants who bring construction-related disability access claims, which includes special pleading requirements and a higher filing fee (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 55.31(b), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.50 and 425.55, and Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5). The court states that numerous district courts have treated that regime as providing compelling reasons and an exceptional circumstance for declining supplemental jurisdiction over disability-related state claims in certain cases. It adds that the Ninth Circuit has upheld that approach multiple times, citing Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), and Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a ruling on the merits or a decision on jurisdiction. The court orders the plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim in the complaint, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court has not yet decided to decline jurisdiction, and it makes no finding that the plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks. The plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that give all facts the court needs to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response is due November 2, 2026. The order warns that failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or to the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims and dismissing those claims under section 1367(c). Any such dismissal would be without prejudice and so would not adjudicate the merits. The materials do not show whether the plaintiff responded or what the court did next.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural directive to show cause; it does not decide whether the court will keep or decline the Unruh Act claim.
- The plaintiff must state the statutory damages sought, and both plaintiff and counsel must file sworn declarations addressing the high-frequency litigant definition in section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The court cites Vo v. Choi and Arroyo v. Rosas for the Ninth Circuit's approval of declining supplemental jurisdiction in this setting.
- The outcomes the court warns of are dismissal of the whole action without prejudice or dismissal of only the state law claims under section 1367(c), not a ruling on the merits.
- An unpublished order of a single district judge like this one is not precedent and does not bind other courts.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District judge screens ADA and Unruh Act filings at the outset. Rather than waiting for a motion, the court asks for facts about the damages sought and about the plaintiff's and counsel's filing history, which bear on whether California's high-frequency litigant rules supply compelling reasons to decline the state claim. The inquiry is framed under section 1367(c) and the comity concerns the court describes.
The order is unpublished and has no precedential weight; its value is as an example of the court's practice. The order says nothing further about the ADA injunctive claim, so what happens to it if the state claim is declined remains open.