Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey sued Nns Management, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. His complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence. The case is docketed as No. 2:26-cv-12003-MWC-E.
On October 16, 2026, District Judge Michelle Williams Court issued an in-chambers order to show cause concerning supplemental jurisdiction. The order does not decide whether any defendant violated disability-access laws or whether Pumphrey can prove negligence. It instead addresses whether the federal court should continue exercising jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims alongside the federal ADA claim.
The order invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), signaling the court's concern about retaining state-law claims in these circumstances. It sets a written response deadline of Friday, October 23, 2026, and specifies the information and declarations required from both Pumphrey and his counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Pumphrey to show cause in writing by Friday, October 23, 2026, why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any related state-law claims. It 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 requires a justification for retaining those claims; it does not itself dismiss them or resolve the ADA claim.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Pumphrey seeks to recover. Both Pumphrey and his counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they meet the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order thus requires information from the client and counsel, not merely legal argument from counsel.
The court expressly warned that failure to respond as ordered will result in its declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). That stated consequence concerns noncompliance with the order. The two-page minute order contains no final merits ruling, damages award, or determination of anyone's high-frequency-litigant status.
Key Takeaways
- Pumphrey must file a written response by October 23, 2026, explaining why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act and related state-law claims.
- The response must state the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover.
- Pumphrey and his counsel must provide declarations under penalty of perjury with facts bearing on the statutory high-frequency-litigant definition.
- Failure to comply will lead to dismissal of the affected state-law claims without prejudice, according to the order's express warning.
- The order does not adjudicate the underlying accessibility allegations, award relief, or dismiss the federal ADA claim.
Why It Matters
The order makes supplemental jurisdiction and litigation-history information immediate threshold issues in this disability-access case. Its declaration requirement reaches both the plaintiff and counsel and calls for facts relevant to California's high-frequency-litigant provisions, while the damages disclosure requirement makes the requested statutory recovery explicit. Because the show-cause obligation is directed at the plaintiff personally as well as counsel, compliance requires coordination between them rather than a purely legal filing.
The practical stakes are the continued federal-court adjudication of the state-law claims, not an immediate determination of liability. A response must address the court's jurisdictional concern and comply with the specified evidentiary requirements; the order identifies dismissal without prejudice as the consequence of failing to respond, leaving open the possibility of refiling those claims elsewhere rather than adjudicating them against Pumphrey on the merits.