Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Epifanio Tapias filed a complaint against Casa Fina Restaurant And Cantina LLC asserting a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law claims for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. Plaintiff invoked the court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the state law claims. The matter came before Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue on the court's own initiative to evaluate whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state law claims.
The court noted that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) which permits courts to decline jurisdiction when a claim raises novel or complex state law issues, substantially predominates over federal claims, all federal claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances present compelling reasons. The court highlighted California's 2012 adoption of a heightened pleading standard for Unruh Act construction-access claims (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50) requiring verified complaints with specific facts about barriers encountered and dates of each encounter, as well as a 2015 "high-frequency litigant fee" (Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55) targeting plaintiffs and firms filing excessive numbers of such lawsuits.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to demonstrate in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claims. The court cited precedent from district courts within California, particularly Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), which declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to use federal court as an "end-around" to California's pleading requirements, based on comity and deference to California's interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims.
Plaintiff must file a written response by November 3, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and providing declarations under penalty of perjury establishing whether Plaintiff and counsel meet the definition of "high-frequency litigant" under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes disclosing the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve months preceding the current filing, and the number of such claims in which Plaintiff's counsel represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs during the same period. Failure to timely or adequately respond may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claims without further notice.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claims to respect California's heightened pleading standards and anti-vexatious litigation measures.
- Plaintiffs and their counsel must disclose high-frequency litigant status under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55 when ordered, including specific filing statistics for the preceding twelve months.
- The court treats supplemental jurisdiction as discretionary and will weigh comity, fairness, and California's interest in policing disability access litigation abuse.
- Failure to adequately respond to an Order to Show Cause on supplemental jurisdiction can result in dismissal of state law claims without further notice.
- The order applies to all state law claims asserted in the complaint, not only the Unruh Act claim.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing trend among California federal courts to scrutinize supplemental jurisdiction over state disability access claims in light of California's legislative efforts to curb abusive litigation practices. By requiring plaintiffs to justify supplemental jurisdiction and disclose high-frequency litigant status, the court enforces comity principles and prevents federal courts from becoming a forum to circumvent state procedural safeguards. The ruling signals that plaintiffs bringing ADA claims with pendant Unruh Act claims should expect heightened scrutiny of their state law claims and potential dismissal if they cannot demonstrate good cause for federal adjudication.