Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Epifanio Tapias filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. The case was assigned to Judge Percy Anderson.
The court observed that it appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim that plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The court noted that the supplemental jurisdiction statute reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the complaint, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court quoted City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which in turn quoted Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988), for the proposition that courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
In responding to the order to show cause, plaintiff was required to identify the amount of statutory damages plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel were also required to support their responses with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a 'high-frequency litigant' as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
Plaintiff was ordered to file a response to the order to show cause by no later than November 5, 2026. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court issued an order to show cause requiring the plaintiff to justify why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over state law claims in an ADA case.
- Plaintiff must identify the specific amount of statutory damages sought and provide declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
- Failure to respond adequately by the November 5, 2026 deadline may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the state law claims.
- The court's order reflects ongoing scrutiny of supplemental jurisdiction in ADA cases where state law claims may be subject to different procedural requirements or where high-frequency litigant status may affect the litigation.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the practice of federal courts in the Central District of California scrutinizing whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, particularly Unruh Act claims, in ADA accessibility cases. The requirement that plaintiff and counsel address high-frequency litigant status suggests the court is attentive to California's procedural rules governing serial ADA litigation.
The order does not resolve the merits of the underlying claims but establishes a procedural hurdle that plaintiff must clear to maintain the state law claims in federal court. The outcome of the show-cause process will determine whether the case proceeds with both federal and state claims or whether the state claims are dismissed or the entire action is dismissed without prejudice.