Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Pumphrey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Perez Wheels & Tires, Inc. and other defendants, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, and other provisions of California law. The complaint invoked supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are so related to claims within the court's original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. The court emphasized that this is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966).
The court noted that in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, a district court should consider at every stage of the litigation the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012, and in 2015 imposed a high-frequency litigant fee for plaintiffs and law firms that have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. These reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring a significant percentage of such claims.
Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum, many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction. A review of the docket showed that in the one-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, Pumphrey had filed more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims, meaning he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California Superior Court.
The court ordered Pumphrey to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. He must file a response not exceeding ten pages by November 10, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and presenting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury providing evidence necessary to determine if he meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendants may file a response by November 17, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims when the plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under state law.
- California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fee reflect the state's substantial interest in regulating construction-related accessibility claims.
- A plaintiff who has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in one year may be deemed a high-frequency litigant and face dismissal of state-law claims from federal court.
- The court required the plaintiff to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury to determine his high-frequency litigant status.
- Failure to respond to the order to show cause could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the ongoing tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and California's efforts to curb abusive accessibility litigation through procedural requirements. By ordering the plaintiff to show cause, the court signaled its willingness to decline jurisdiction over state-law claims that would allow high-frequency litigants to circumvent state-imposed requirements.
The decision reinforces that supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and that comity concerns may weigh against exercising jurisdiction when doing so would undermine state legislative reforms targeting a specific category of litigation.