Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 27, 2026, Plaintiff Jerry Ong filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Defendants MNRO Holdings, LLC; Integrated Conceptions, LLC; and Does 1 to 10. The complaint asserts four claims: (1) injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; (2) damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53; (3) damages under California's Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54; and (4) negligence. Plaintiff maintained that the court had 'pendant [sic] jurisdiction' over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Three days after the complaint was filed, on October 30, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order to show cause. The order addressed whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, rather than treating the exercise of that jurisdiction as automatic. The court framed the issue against the backdrop of California's statutory efforts to curb abuse of disability-access litigation by high-frequency litigants.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is 'a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice,' quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997), and United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). It identified the four circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) in which a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction, including when the claim substantially predominates over the federal claims or when exceptional circumstances provide other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The court emphasized that federal courts should weigh 'the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity' at every stage of litigation.
Drawing on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021), the court noted that a 'confluence of several California-law rules' has created a 'highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases' that threatens federal-state comity. Because the ADA provides only prospective injunctive relief while the Unruh Act expands available remedies to include statutory damages, ADA-Unruh lawsuits have frequently targeted small businesses with boilerplate complaints seeking quick cash settlements. California responded with heightened pleading standards for construction-related accessibility claims and additional disclosure requirements and fees for high-frequency litigants.
The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and, together with counsel, submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing facts necessary to determine whether they meet the definition of 'high-frequency litigant' under California Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)–(2), including the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff and the number in which counsel represented high-frequency litigants in the preceding 12 months. The response is due within 14 days, and failure to timely or adequately respond may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction without further warning.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California may require ADA plaintiffs to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and related state-law claims, particularly where the plaintiff may be a high-frequency litigant.
- Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is discretionary, and courts may decline it when state-law claims substantially predominate or when comity concerns weigh against exercising it.
- California has imposed heightened pleading standards, disclosure requirements, and additional filing fees on high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related accessibility claims to deter boilerplate lawsuits aimed at quick settlements.
- District courts within California have declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims where exercising it would allow plaintiffs to circumvent state-imposed restrictions, and the Ninth Circuit has upheld such decisions as within the court's discretion.
- A plaintiff's failure to adequately respond to an order to show cause on supplemental jurisdiction may result in dismissal of state-law claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
This order reflects an ongoing pattern among federal district courts in California of scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, particularly where the plaintiff or counsel may qualify as high-frequency litigants under state law. By requiring declarations under penalty of perjury about filing history, the court signaled that it will actively police attempts to use federal court as an end-around to California's pleading requirements.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of anticipating a supplemental-jurisdiction challenge when filing ADA-Unruh complaints in federal court. Plaintiffs and their counsel should be prepared to disclose statutory damages sought and their litigation history, and to articulate why the federal forum is appropriate given California's comity interests in channeling such claims through its own procedural framework.