Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias, who uses a wheelchair while traveling in public, sued Jetpack and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged that the defendants' facilities contained physical barriers impeding his access, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Act, among other laws. The October 27, 2026 order did not decide whether those allegations were true or resolve any claim on the merits.
The court explained that it had authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because that claim was closely related to the ADA claim. But supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) permits a district court to decline it in specified circumstances, including when exceptional circumstances supply other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The court therefore framed the issue as whether to retain the state-law claim, not whether the claim itself was valid.
The Court’s Holding
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's published decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Arroyo addressed California's 2012 and 2015 Unruh Act amendments intended to protect businesses from abusive construction-related litigation by high-frequency litigants, and the subsequent movement of ADA cases seeking Unruh Act statutory damages into federal court. The Ninth Circuit concluded that retaining supplemental jurisdiction in those circumstances could substantially thwart California's reforms and deprive state courts of their role in implementing them, potentially establishing exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4). Arroyo nevertheless reversed the district court's declination there because it came only after summary judgment on the ADA claim, effectively deciding the Unruh Act claim and waiting too long to invoke comity.
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. distinguished this case's early posture: the court had not addressed or adjudicated the merits of any claim. It therefore preliminarily concluded that this appeared to be an appropriate case to decline supplemental jurisdiction to protect Arroyo's comity interests. The court ordered Tapias to show cause in writing within 14 days after entry why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4). His response must state the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts necessary to determine whether he and his counsel meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)–(2). If he does not timely respond, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and the Unruh Act claim will be automatically dismissed without prejudice without further order.
Key Takeaways
- The order requires a written response within 14 days after entry; it does not immediately dismiss the Unruh Act claim.
- Any dismissal for failure to respond would be without prejudice and would occur automatically without a further court order.
- The response must identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations addressing the high-frequency-litigant criteria for both Tapias and his counsel.
- The court distinguished Arroyo's untimely post-summary-judgment declination because no merits adjudication had occurred here.
- The ADA claim was not dismissed or adjudicated by this order, which addressed only whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claim.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Arroyo at the outset of an accessibility case rather than after a federal merits ruling, directly addressing the timing problem that caused reversal in Arroyo. It treats California's interest in enforcing its high-frequency-litigant reforms as a potential exceptional circumstance supporting discretionary declination under § 1367(c)(4).
The required damages disclosure and sworn factual submissions give the plaintiff an opportunity to contest the proposed dismissal while supplying information relevant to the state-law concerns. Because the contemplated dismissal is without prejudice, the order concerns the federal court's retention of the Unruh Act claim, not a final determination that the claim lacks merit.