Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias filed suit against Flamebachi Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53, and additional state-law claims.
The only asserted basis for federal jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). On November 4, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction, acting on its own initiative before any attorney appearances. The court emphasized that it has a sua sponte obligation to confirm subject matter jurisdiction and may raise the question at any time during the pendency of the action.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that it has an independent obligation to confirm subject matter jurisdiction, which it may raise sua sponte at any time. It noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and it cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of the very substantial threat to federal-state comity presented by plaintiffs' use of federal courts to evade California's Unruh Act reforms.
The court ordered Tapias to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state-law claims. The response must state the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act and provide sufficient facts for the court to determine whether Tapias or his counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2), with those facts set forth in declarations signed under penalty of perjury.
The response is due on or before November 18, 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 the court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissing that claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order does not resolve the merits of the ADA claim; it addresses only whether the court should keep the state-law claims in federal court.
Key Takeaways
- District courts in the Ninth Circuit may raise supplemental jurisdiction concerns sua sponte in ADA cases that include Unruh Act claims.
- The Ninth Circuit's Arroyo v. Rosas decision authorizes declining supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims on federal-state comity grounds tied to California's Unruh Act reforms.
- The plaintiff must disclose the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act and submit perjury-penalty declarations addressing whether he or his counsel is a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b).
- Failure to respond adequately by November 18, 2026 could lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c).
- The order does not resolve the merits of the ADA claim; it addresses only whether the court should keep the state-law claims in federal court.
Why It Matters
This order reflects the continuing fallout from the Ninth Circuit's Arroyo v. Rosas decision, which gave district courts a comity-based rationale for refusing to entertain Unruh Act damages claims piggybacked on federal ADA claims. By demanding information about statutory damages and high-frequency litigant status, the court is directly probing whether the case implicates the California legislative reforms aimed at curbing serial accessibility litigation.
For ADA plaintiffs and their counsel in the Central District of California, the order signals that Unruh Act claims may face early jurisdictional scrutiny even before defendants appear, and that inadequate responses can jeopardize the entire action.