Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Garland Horton sued Burger 3000 LLC and other defendants in the Central District of California. According to the order, the complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief based on an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. These are the plaintiff's allegations; the order makes no findings about whether any access violation occurred. The court observed that it appears to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state law claim the plaintiff may have pleaded, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court began with the principle that a federal court deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every stage of the litigation, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which quoted Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). It then described California's statutory regime for high-frequency litigants who bring construction-related disability access claims, which includes special pleading requirements and a higher filing fee for litigants who meet certain criteria, citing Cal. Civ. Code § 55.31(b), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.50 and 425.55, and Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5. According to the order, numerous district courts have treated that regime as a compelling reason and an exceptional circumstance justifying a decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over such state claims in certain cases, an approach the Ninth Circuit has upheld in Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), and Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Court’s Holding
This is a show-cause order, not a ruling on whether jurisdiction will be exercised. The court directed the plaintiff to explain in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The plaintiff must state the amount of statutory damages sought. The plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that supply all facts needed to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response was due by November 2, 2026. The court warned that a failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any other state claims and dismissing those claims under section 1367(c). These are stated possibilities, not rulings. Nothing has been dismissed, no final judgment has been entered, and the materials provided do not show whether a response was filed. The order is unpublished and carries no precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural step: the court has not ruled on the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims, and has not yet decided whether to keep the state claim.
- The plaintiff must disclose the statutory damages sought, and the plaintiff and counsel must file sworn declarations addressing high-frequency litigant status.
- The order describes two possible consequences of an inadequate response: dismissal of the whole action without prejudice, or declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state claims.
- The order does not say whether a dismissal of state claims under section 1367(c) would be with or without prejudice, and it makes no finding that anyone is a high-frequency litigant.
Why It Matters
The order reflects a recurring practice in the Central District of California of examining, on the court's own initiative and early in the case, whether to retain Unruh Act damages claims that accompany federal ADA access claims. By citing Vo and Arroyo, the court signals that declining supplemental jurisdiction is a recognized option where California's high-frequency litigant framework is implicated, while still requiring facts about this plaintiff and counsel.
Much remains open. The court has made no finding that the plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant, has not addressed the damages sought, and has not decided whether to retain or decline the state claim. The order should be read as notice of the court's concerns and the information it requires, not as a decision on any party's rights.