Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Oscar Magallanes filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief based on an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213, and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53. The court's October 26, 2026 civil minutes also identified a California Disabled Persons Act claim, a California Health and Safety Code claim, and a negligence claim. The court stated that it appeared to have supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but it did not finally decide whether to retain them, and the federal ADA claim remains outside the show-cause proceeding.
The order explained that the supplemental jurisdiction statute requires a federal court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation, quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. It then described California's legislative response to disability-access litigation: a heightened pleading standard adopted in 2012 for Unruh Act construction-access claims, requiring a verified complaint alleging specific barriers encountered or deterrence and the dates of each encounter, and a high-frequency litigant fee imposed in 2015 under Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5. These measures, the court explained, were the stated reasons for examining whether federal adjudication of the state claims would undermine California's regulatory choices.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an order to show cause rather than dismissing any claim. It directed Magallanes to explain in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In support, the order cited district-court authority counseling against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act construction-access claims, including Schutza v. Cuddeback, and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which upheld declining jurisdiction where exercising it would render distinctive California-law rules ineffectual and which constitutes exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
The order imposes specific compliance obligations. Magallanes must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. He and his counsel must also support their responses with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due November 5, 2026. The court warned that a failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the four identified state-law claims and dismissing them under § 1367(c). The ADA injunctive-relief claim was not included in that warning, and the order did not resolve the merits of any claim.
Key Takeaways
- The court required a written response by November 5, 2026, but it had not yet dismissed the state-law claims or declined supplemental jurisdiction; the jurisdictional question remains open.
- The response must state the amount of statutory damages sought and include declarations signed under penalty of perjury from both Magallanes and his counsel addressing the high-frequency-litigant criteria in California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- The order grounded its comity concerns in California's verified-pleading requirements for Unruh Act construction-access claims and the state's high-frequency litigant fee for disability-access litigation.
- The potential dismissal warning covered four state-law claims, while the federal ADA injunctive-relief claim was not listed for dismissal, and no claim has been dismissed at this stage.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a federal court can scrutinize supplemental jurisdiction before adjudicating state-law disability-access claims, particularly where California's pleading and fee rules could be bypassed if the claims proceed in federal court. It applies the judicial-economy, convenience, fairness, and comity framework without treating dismissal as automatic, and it follows Ninth Circuit precedent recognizing that rendering distinctive California rules ineffectual can justify declining jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4).
For litigants, the immediate consequence is a demanding compliance obligation: the plaintiff and his counsel must provide sworn factual information about their litigation history and a specific damages figure by the November 5, 2026 deadline. The ultimate jurisdictional decision, and any dismissal of the four state-law claims, remains open pending the response.