Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Omar Luna filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, and other state-law claims. The court identified supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) as the sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, while § 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in specified circumstances. On October 28, 2026, Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald issued an in-chambers order to show cause re supplemental jurisdiction in Case No. CV 26-12491-MWF(BFMx), Document 11, with no attorneys present for either party.
The court explained that it has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject-matter jurisdiction, and that it may raise the question on its own at any time during the pendency of the action, citing Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012). It emphasized that § 1367(c) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction, and it relied on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because plaintiffs' use of federal court to evade California's Unruh Act reforms presents a very substantial threat to federal-state comity.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Luna to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state-law claims alleged by Plaintiff. This is an order requiring a jurisdictional showing; it is not a decision dismissing any claim and it does not finally decline supplemental jurisdiction. The written response must include the amount of statutory damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act and sufficient facts for the court to determine whether Luna or his counsel meets the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
Those facts must be set forth in declarations signed under penalty of perjury. The response shall be filed on or before November 12, 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 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 identifies possible consequences but leaves the jurisdictional determination and any dismissal for later proceedings, and it concludes "IT IS SO ORDERED."
Key Takeaways
- The court has not yet dismissed the action and has not decided whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim or the other state-law claims.
- Luna must state in his written response the amount of statutory damages he seeks pursuant to the Unruh Act.
- He must provide sufficient facts, in declarations signed under penalty of perjury, for the court to determine whether he or his counsel meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The response to the order to show cause must be filed on or before November 12, 2026, and the court cautioned that noncompliance carries serious consequences.
- An untimely or inadequate response may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim if the court declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
The order places the burden on Luna to supply concrete information relevant to the court's supplemental-jurisdiction analysis rather than treating jurisdiction over the state-law claims as automatic. Its focus on statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status ties the required showing to the comity concerns described in Arroyo concerning ADA-based Unruh Act litigation in federal court, and it signals that the court will scrutinize whether the federal forum is being used appropriately.
The warning about possible dismissal makes compliance important, but it does not resolve the merits of the ADA claim or any state-law claim. The immediate dispute concerns the appropriate forum and the court's authority to entertain the supplemental claims, and the jurisdictional question remains open pending Luna's response and any further proceedings.