Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 6, 2026, Enrique Garcia sued Joseph Thomas Vallejo, as Trustee of the Vallejo Family Trust, and Does 1 through 10 in the Central District of California. The complaint pleads an ADA claim for injunctive relief, damages claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act, damages and injunctive relief under Health and Safety Code section 19955 and following, and negligence. Plaintiff alleges that the court has pendent jurisdiction over the state claims, which the court analyzes under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
The court begins from the principle that being able to exercise supplemental jurisdiction does not mean it must do so. Citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, it describes the doctrine as one of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice. Section 1367(c) allows a court to decline when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances. The court must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
Relying on Arroyo v. Rosas, the court explains that the ADA gives private litigants only prospective injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act borrows the ADA's substantive rules but adds monetary remedies. The Ninth Circuit found that this combination threatens federal-state comity, and that such suits have often targeted small businesses with boilerplate complaints seeking quick settlements. California responded with a verified, fact-specific pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims, added disclosures for high-frequency litigants, and a high-frequency litigant fee.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a ruling on the merits and not yet a decision to decline jurisdiction. No claim has been dismissed or remanded. The court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims.
As grounding, the court observes that district courts in California have determined that fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency litigants, citing Whitaker v. Mac and Schutza v. Cuddeback. It also cites Arroyo for the holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction because California's distinctive rules would otherwise be rendered ineffectual. The court does not find that Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant.
Plaintiff must respond within 14 days. The response must state the amount of statutory damages sought. Plaintiff and counsel must also file declarations under penalty of perjury supplying the facts needed to decide high-frequency litigant status under Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)-(2), including the number of construction-related accessibility claims Plaintiff filed in the preceding 12 months and the number in which counsel represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in that period. If the response is untimely or inadequate, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over those claims without further warning.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a show-cause directive; it does not decide whether supplemental jurisdiction will be exercised and does not dismiss any claim.
- Supplemental jurisdiction under section 1367 is discretionary, and the court must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
- Plaintiff must state the statutory damages sought, and Plaintiff and counsel must file sworn declarations about their recent accessibility-claim filings.
- Missing the 14-day deadline or responding inadequately may lead the court to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims without further warning.
- The order addresses only the state-law claims and says nothing about the federal ADA claim.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Central District judge applies section 1367(c) and Arroyo v. Rosas at the start of an ADA and Unruh Act case, requiring sworn facts before deciding whether state damages claims will proceed in federal court. It is an in-chambers minute order with no precedential weight of its own; any persuasive force comes from the published authority it cites.
Still open are whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, the amount of statutory damages sought, and whether the court will decline jurisdiction. The order does not say what would happen to the state claims if it does.