Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rogelio Santibanez’s complaint names Renee Torres and other defendants and seeks injunctive relief for an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also seeks damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and asserts other state-law claims. The November 3, 2026 in-chambers order did not decide the merits of those allegations, determine liability, or dismiss any claim.
The court instead addressed the jurisdictional basis for the state-law claims. It stated that it appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other alleged state-law claim, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). That tentative formulation matters: the order opens a focused inquiry into whether supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised rather than announcing a final jurisdictional ruling. The ADA claim was described in the complaint, but the show-cause directive specifically concerned the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Anne Hwang ordered Santibanez to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted in the complaint. Quoting City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, the court explained that the supplemental-jurisdiction statute calls for weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every litigation stage. It cited § 1367(c) in connection with the show-cause directive. The order therefore seeks a justified exercise of discretion, not merely a statement that federal jurisdiction exists.
The response must identify the amount of statutory damages Santibanez seeks to recover. Santibanez and his counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that provide all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy the high-frequency-litigant definition in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1)–(2). The order requires information for that determination; it does not declare either Santibanez or counsel a high-frequency litigant or impose a sanction based on that status.
Santibanez must file his response within 14 days. The court warned that failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Alternatively, the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims and dismiss those claims under § 1367(c). These are conditional consequences of noncompliance, not relief already granted, and the order leaves the ultimate jurisdictional decision for later consideration.
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered Santibanez to justify continued federal supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act and other state-law claims, but did not dismiss those claims or the ADA claim.
- The written response is due within 14 days and must specify the amount of statutory damages sought.
- Both Santibanez and his counsel must submit declarations under penalty of perjury supplying facts relevant to the statutory high-frequency-litigant definition.
- An untimely or inadequate response may lead without further warning to dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or to dismissal of the state-law claims after the court declines supplemental jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The order makes supplemental jurisdiction an immediate threshold issue in an ADA and Unruh Act case while leaving the merits and the ultimate jurisdictional decision unresolved. Its demand for damages information and sworn facts about high-frequency-litigant status gives the court a concrete record for the pending inquiry. The required declarations also place responsibility on both plaintiff and counsel to supply the facts the court expressly identified as necessary.
The warning has different potential scopes: dismissal of the entire action without prejudice is one possible response to noncompliance, while the alternative concerns the Unruh Act and other state-law claims under § 1367(c). Neither outcome had occurred when this order issued. The immediate obligation is therefore a timely, adequate written response supported by the required information and declarations.