Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marco Ruiz filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Caravan Restaurant, Inc. and other defendants, asserting a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. The court noted that it appeared to have supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, and a negligence claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court situated the case within California's broader disability-access litigation landscape. In 2012, California adopted a heightened pleading standard for Unruh Act construction-access lawsuits, requiring a verified complaint alleging specific facts, including the specific barriers encountered and each date on which the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). In 2015, California also imposed a high-frequency litigant fee in response to certain plaintiffs and law firms filing an outsized number of Unruh Act lawsuits. Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5.
The Court’s Holding
Chief Judge Dolly M. Gee issued an in-chambers order to show cause rather than immediately declining jurisdiction. The court explained that the supplemental jurisdiction statute reflects the understanding that a federal court should consider and weigh, at every stage of litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). The court observed that some district courts within California have determined that fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claims, citing Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017), and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in treating such circumstances as exceptional under § 1367(c)(4).
The court 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. In responding, Ruiz must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover, and Ruiz and his counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due by November 5, 2026, and the court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing those claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court issued an order to show cause rather than immediately dismissing the state-law claims, giving the plaintiff an opportunity to justify retaining supplemental jurisdiction.
- The plaintiff must show cause why the court should not decline jurisdiction, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and submit declarations from both himself and his counsel addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The order relies on California's heightened pleading standards for Unruh Act construction-access claims and the state's high-frequency litigant fee as reasons comity may counsel against federal supplemental jurisdiction.
- The court cited the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which upheld a district court's discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims on exceptional-circumstances grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).
- Failure to respond adequately by November 5, 2026, may result in dismissal of the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
This order reflects an ongoing approach by some federal district courts in California to scrutinize whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law disability access claims filed alongside ADA claims, particularly where the plaintiff may be a high-frequency litigant. By requiring declarations from both the plaintiff and his counsel, the court signaled that it will examine the filing history of both the individual plaintiff and the law firm before deciding whether exercising jurisdiction would undermine California's pleading and fee requirements.
The order does not resolve the jurisdictional question; it leaves open whether the court will ultimately decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state-law claims. The outcome will depend on the plaintiff's response, including the statutory damages sought and the high-frequency litigant disclosures. The ADA claim for injunctive relief, over which the court has original federal-question jurisdiction, is not at risk under this order.