Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jorge Luna filed a complaint asserting a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a state law claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. The complaint invokes the court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the Unruh Act claim. The court notes that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997), and the statutory factors in § 1367(c) that permit a district court to decline jurisdiction.
The order details California's legislative response to perceived abuse in disability access litigation. In 2012, California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.50, imposing a heightened pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims, requiring verified complaints with specific facts about barriers encountered and dates of each encounter. In 2015, the state imposed a "high-frequency litigant fee" under Government Code § 70616.5 targeting plaintiffs and law firms filing an outsized number of Unruh Act lawsuits. The court cites Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), where a court declined supplemental jurisdiction to prevent a high-frequency litigant from using federal court as an "end-around" to California's pleading requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The court issues an Order to Show Cause (OSC) directing plaintiff to demonstrate in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state law claims. The court explicitly identifies the factors it will weigh: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, per Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988), and Ninth Circuit precedent in Acri v. Varian Associates, 114 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff must file a response within 14 days that includes: (1) the amount of statutory damages sought; (2) declarations signed under penalty of perjury from plaintiff and counsel providing all facts necessary to determine if they meet the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2). The court warns that failure to timely or adequately respond may result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state law claim(s) without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court reserves the option to set a hearing after reviewing responses.
Key Takeaways
- The court signals strong skepticism toward exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claims given California's specific legislative framework to deter vexatious litigation.
- Plaintiff and counsel must disclose under penalty of perjury whether they qualify as "high-frequency litigants" under California law, a threshold inquiry that could be dispositive of the comity analysis.
- The OSC does not dismiss the state claim but places the burden on plaintiff to justify federal court adjudication of a claim California has specifically regulated through heightened pleading and fee-shifting mechanisms.
- The court's reliance on Schutza v. Cuddeback indicates a developing intra-district consensus that comity favors remitting Unruh Act construction claims to state court.
- The 14-day deadline and warning of dismissal without further notice underscore the procedural seriousness of the OSC.
Why It Matters
This order reflects a growing trend among California federal courts to scrutinize supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in ADA access litigation. By requiring plaintiffs to self-identify as high-frequency litigants and justify federal forum selection, the court operationalizes comity concerns articulated in Schutza and the Supreme Court's supplemental jurisdiction framework. The ruling may deter forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking to evade California's verified pleading requirements and litigant fees, while preserving federal courts' discretion to hear state claims when justified. The decision leaves open the ultimate disposition of the Unruh Act claim pending plaintiff's response, but establishes a clear analytical framework weighing state regulatory interests against federal judicial economy.