Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Meriah Gardea sued Esthela Borja and others in the Central District of California. The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 through 53. It asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1367. The ruling is an in-chambers civil minute order entered October 21, 2026, before any decision on the merits.
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not a plaintiff's right. It quoted section 1367(c), which allows a district court to decline jurisdiction when a state claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates, remains after all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons. It added that courts weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill.
The court then described California's response to high-volume disability-access litigation. A 2012 heightened pleading rule in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.50 requires a verified complaint stating the specific barriers encountered, or how the plaintiff was deterred, along with dates. A 2015 high-frequency litigant fee appears in Government Code section 70616.5. The court observed that district courts in California have concluded that fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claims. It cited Schutza v. Cuddeback (S.D. Cal. 2017), which declined jurisdiction to keep a high-frequency litigant from using federal court as an end-around to state pleading requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not decide whether to keep or decline the Unruh Act claim. It ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim and any related state law claims. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. It must also be supported by declarations from Plaintiff and counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, giving all facts needed to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response is due within fourteen days of the order; the docket entry lists November 4, 2026. The court warned that a failure to respond timely or adequately may lead it to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act claim and related state claims without further notice under section 1367(c). It may also set a hearing after reviewing the responses. The order itself dismisses nothing, and it does not say whether any later dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
The order makes no finding that Plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant and no ruling on the merits of either claim. The discussion of California's pleading rules and comity explains why the court is asking the question; it is not a conclusion that jurisdiction will be declined.
Key Takeaways
- The order is an interim show-cause directive, not a dismissal or final judgment, and the Unruh Act claim stays before the court pending Plaintiff's response.
- Plaintiff must state the amount of statutory damages sought in the response.
- Plaintiff and counsel must support the response with declarations under penalty of perjury addressing high-frequency litigant status under section 425.55.
- An untimely or inadequate response may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state claims without further notice.
- The order does not address the ADA injunctive-relief claim, which is outside the scope of the show-cause directive.
Why It Matters
The order shows a federal judge screening the pairing of an ADA claim with an Unruh Act damages claim at the outset. Rather than waiting for a motion, the court applies its discretion under section 1367(c), informed by California's pleading and fee rules and by persuasive district court authority. It places on Plaintiff the task of explaining why the state claim belongs in federal court.
This is an unreported minute order and carries no precedential weight. Open questions include whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, how much in statutory damages is sought, and whether the court will retain or decline the Unruh Act claim after reviewing the responses.