Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marco Ruiz's complaint seeks injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court's order also identifies California Disabled Persons Act and negligence claims as state-law claims over which it appears to have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The case is No. CV 26-12694-DMG (PVCx) in the Central District of California, and the November 2, 2026 civil minutes were issued in chambers with no attorneys present.
The order explains that supplemental jurisdiction requires consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every litigation stage, quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. The court describes California's 2012 heightened pleading standard for construction-access claims under Civil Code § 55.52(a)(1) and Code of Civil Procedure § 425.50(a), which requires a verified complaint alleging specific barriers encountered or deterrence and the dates involved. It also notes the state's 2015 high-frequency litigant fee under Government Code § 70616.5, enacted in response to certain plaintiffs and firms filing unusually large numbers of Unruh Act lawsuits.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not dismiss the state-law claims or finally decline supplemental jurisdiction. Instead, it ordered Ruiz to show cause in writing why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). His response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Ruiz and his counsel must also submit declarations signed under penalty of perjury supplying the facts needed to determine whether they meet California's definition of a high-frequency litigant under Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The order relies on decisions concluding that fairness and comity can counsel against federal adjudication of Unruh Act construction-access claims when doing so would circumvent California's pleading requirements. It quotes Schutza v. Cuddeback's concern about using federal court as an end-around those requirements and Arroyo v. Rosas's approval of declining jurisdiction where distinctive California rules would be rendered ineffectual. The response is due November 12, 2026; an untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, lead the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the identified state-law claims under § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The order requires Ruiz to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over three state-law claims, but it does not itself dismiss them or resolve the underlying ADA claim.
- Ruiz must state the statutory damages he seeks and respond to the proposed declination in a written filing due November 12, 2026.
- Both Ruiz and his counsel must provide sworn declarations containing facts relevant to California's high-frequency litigant criteria under Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The court's reasoning centers on comity and preserving California's specialized pleading and litigation controls for disability-access cases, including the verified complaint requirement and the high-frequency litigant fee.
- Failure to respond timely or adequately may result in dismissal of the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a federal court can scrutinize supplemental jurisdiction before adjudicating state disability-access claims alongside an ADA claim. It treats California's verified-pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant framework as potentially relevant to the exceptional-circumstances and comity analysis under § 1367(c)(4), rather than assuming that related state claims must remain in federal court.
The immediate consequence is procedural and evidentiary: Ruiz and his counsel must supply damages information and sworn facts bearing on their litigation status. The order leaves the ultimate jurisdictional decision open, while expressly warning that an insufficient response could produce dismissal of the state-law claims under § 1367(c).