Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Miriam Maldonado filed a complaint against Christopher T. Giaco and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 26-12602-MWF(PDx). The complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53, and other state-law claims alleged by the plaintiff.
The court identified supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as the sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. On October 30, 2026, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued an in-chambers civil minutes order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction, acting on the court's own initiative to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction. No attorneys were present for either plaintiffs or defendants, and the order did not adjudicate the merits of the ADA, Unruh Act, or other state-law allegations.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). It cited Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021), which holds that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of the "very substantial threat to federal-state comity" presented by plaintiffs' use of federal courts to evade California's Unruh Act reforms. The court also emphasized its independent, sua sponte obligation to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that the question may be raised at any time during the pendency of the action.
Judge Fitzgerald ordered Maldonado to show cause in writing as to why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state-law claims alleged by the plaintiff. The response must include (1) the amount of statutory damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act, and (2) sufficient facts, set forth in declarations signed under penalty of perjury, for the court to determine whether Maldonado or her counsel meets the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response is due on or before November 13, 2026. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or in the court's declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissing that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order therefore requires a jurisdictional showing but does not itself dismiss any claim or resolve the underlying allegations.
Key Takeaways
- The plaintiff must justify in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over both the Unruh Act claim and the other state-law claims.
- The response must state the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act.
- Declarations signed under penalty of perjury must supply facts showing whether the plaintiff or her counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The filing deadline is November 13, 2026; an untimely or inadequate response may lead to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or dismissal of the Unruh Act claim without further warning.
- The order addresses jurisdiction and potential dismissal only; it does not resolve the merits of the disability-discrimination allegations.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's Arroyo decision to require a case-specific justification for keeping ADA-related Unruh Act claims in federal court. It makes the potential federal-state comity concern an express issue for the plaintiff to address rather than simply retaining the state-law claims alongside the federal ADA claim, and it demonstrates the court's willingness to police its own subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.
The required damages disclosure and high-frequency-litigant declarations give the court concrete information for its supplemental-jurisdiction inquiry. The warning also identifies two distinct possible consequences: dismissal of the entire action without prejudice for an inadequate response, or a narrower refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction followed by dismissal of only the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).