Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On October 9, 2026, Robert Mena sued Wentworth Family Partnership, L.P., and Does 1-10 in the Central District of California. The complaint pleads five claims: injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act; damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act; damages under the Disabled Persons Act; damages and injunctive relief under California Health and Safety Code section 19955 and following; and negligence. Mena asserts that the court has what he calls pendent jurisdiction over the state claims, and the court treats that as an invocation of 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
In an in-chambers civil minute order issued on October 23, 2026, the court did not rule on the merits or dismiss anything. Instead it ordered Mena to explain why it should keep the state claims. The court reasoned that the ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction does not mean it must be exercised, because the doctrine is one of discretion rather than the plaintiff's choice. Section 1367(c) lists situations in which a court may decline, and courts weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
The Court’s Holding
The order is a show-cause directive, not a final ruling, and it makes no finding that Mena is a high-frequency litigant. Its reasoning draws on Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), which recognized that a combination of California rules has a systemic effect on ADA-based Unruh Act cases that threatens federal-state comity. Under the ADA a private litigant can obtain only prospective injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act relies on the ADA's substantive rules but expands available remedies. That has led to suits against small businesses on boilerplate complaints aimed at quick settlements rather than correction of accessibility violations.
The court described California's responses: a heightened verified-pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims, added disclosures for high-frequency litigants, and an extra high-frequency litigant filing fee. It cited Whitaker v. Mac and Schutza v. Cuddeback as district decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction so that plaintiffs cannot use federal court to avoid those requirements. It also noted that Arroyo held such a decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Mena must file a written response within 14 days. He must state the amount of statutory damages sought. He and his counsel must also submit declarations under penalty of perjury with the facts needed to decide whether they meet the high-frequency litigant definition in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1)-(2). Those facts include the number of construction-related accessibility claims Mena filed in the prior 12 months and the number of such claims in which counsel represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in that period.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural show-cause directive, and the court has not yet decided whether to keep or decline the state law claims.
- Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and the court signaled that comity concerns tied to California's accessibility-litigation reforms may justify declining it over the Unruh Act and related claims.
- Mena must state the statutory damages he seeks and supply sworn declarations from himself and his counsel about their recent accessibility-claim filings and representations.
- A failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, lead the court to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state claims under section 1367(c).
- The order addresses only the state claims and says nothing about the ADA injunctive claim, so what happens to that claim remains open.
Why It Matters
The order shows how one Central District judge applies Arroyo at the outset of a case. The court requires the plaintiff to supply filing-history facts before it commits to hearing state law damages claims. Sworn disclosures from both plaintiff and counsel give the court a record to decide whether California's pleading, disclosure, and fee safeguards would be bypassed in federal court. Because the response is due within 14 days, the burden falls on the plaintiff to justify a federal forum for the state damages claims.
As an unpublished minute order, it is not binding precedent and carries only persuasive value as an example of the court's practice. The outcome depends on Mena's response. The order does not say what would follow a decision to decline, including whether any dismissal of the state claims would be without prejudice.