Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Richard Guardado filed suit against 168 Uncle John, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case, docketed as 2:26-cv-12761-WLH-PD, includes claims under the Unruh Act, California's disability access civil rights statute, along with other state law claims. The case was assigned to United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu.
On November 3, 2026, Judge Hsu issued an in-chambers order to show cause, acting sua sponte, meaning on the court's own initiative rather than at the request of any party. No attorneys appeared for either side because the order was issued in chambers without a hearing. The order directs the plaintiff to explain in writing why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and all state law claims in the case.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than November 17, 2026, why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and all state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Section 1367(c)(4) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.
The order imposes specific requirements on the plaintiff's response. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks to recover. In addition, both the plaintiff and his counsel must submit 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 as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court warned that failure to respond as ordered will result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and all state law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order states that the order to show cause is discharged upon the filing of an appropriate response.
Key Takeaways
- The court acted on its own initiative, without any motion from the defendants, to question whether it should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case.
- The plaintiff must file a written response by November 17, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought and supported by declarations from both the plaintiff and his counsel signed under penalty of perjury.
- The declarations must provide facts sufficient for the court to determine whether the plaintiff and his counsel meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
- If the plaintiff fails to respond as ordered, the court will decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act and all state law claims without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled in state court.
- The order relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which addresses the circumstances under which federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
Why It Matters
This order reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of disability access litigation in federal courts, particularly cases brought by plaintiffs who file numerous similar lawsuits. By requiring declarations about high-frequency litigant status, the court is gathering information relevant to whether exceptional circumstances exist that would justify declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c)(4).
The order signals that federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit may increasingly invoke the framework from Arroyo v. Rosas to evaluate whether state law disability access claims, particularly those seeking statutory damages under the Unruh Act, belong in federal court or should be litigated in state court. The outcome of this order to show cause could determine whether the plaintiff's state law claims remain in federal court or are dismissed without prejudice and potentially refiled in California state court.