Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
German Perez filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act, and also asserted a negligence theory. The case is docketed as No. 2:26-cv-12950-MWC-DSR.
On November 6, 2026, the Honorable Michelle Williams Court issued an in-chambers civil-minutes order to show cause concerning supplemental jurisdiction. The order did not dismiss any claim and did not finally decide the jurisdictional question. Instead, it directed Perez to explain in writing no later than Friday, November 13, 2026, why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any related state-law claims.
In framing that directive, the court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). The order is a procedural screening step: it sets a deadline and a required showing, and it warns of a consequence for noncompliance, but it leaves the supplemental-jurisdiction question open pending Perez's response.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Perez to show cause in writing why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any related state-law claims. The response is due no later than Friday, November 13, 2026. This is an order to respond, not a ruling declining jurisdiction and not a dismissal of any claim.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Perez seeks to recover, making the damages demand an express part of the required showing. The order does not itself determine that amount, and it does not resolve whether supplemental jurisdiction will ultimately be retained.
Perez and his counsel must also support the response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order further states that failure to respond as ordered will result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- Perez must file a written response by November 13, 2026, explaining why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims.
- The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Perez seeks to recover.
- Perez and his counsel must submit declarations under penalty of perjury supplying the facts needed to assess the statutory high-frequency-litigant definition under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The order warns that noncompliance will lead to dismissal of the affected state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), but it does not itself dismiss those claims or decide the jurisdictional question.
- The ADA allegations remain part of the described complaint; this order specifically addresses supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims only.
Why It Matters
The order places the burden on Perez and his counsel to provide a supported jurisdictional response rather than treating the existing complaint as sufficient. Its requirements focus on the amount of statutory damages and on facts bearing on high-frequency-litigant status, with declarations required from both the plaintiff and counsel. That structure signals that the court will evaluate the state-law claims' viability on a developed record before deciding whether to keep them.
The immediate consequence is a deadline and a warning, not a final dismissal. If Perez fails to comply, the order specifies dismissal without prejudice of the Unruh Act and related state-law claims; it does not state that the federal ADA claim would be dismissed on that basis. The order therefore leaves the federal claim in place while conditioning the state-law claims on a satisfactory response.