Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marco Ruiz sued Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins, LLC and other defendants in the Central District of California. According to the order, the complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court stated that it appears to have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a) over the Unruh Act claim, a California Disabled Persons Act claim, and a negligence claim. These are the plaintiff's allegations and claims; the order makes no findings about any barrier, any injury, or liability.
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction is a matter of discretion. A federal court must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every stage of the litigation, a principle the order draws from City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. The court then described California's responses to high-volume disability access litigation. In 2012 the state adopted a heightened pleading standard requiring a verified complaint that states the specific barriers encountered, or how the plaintiff was deterred, and each date of encounter or deterrence. In 2015 it imposed a high-frequency litigant fee. The court observed that, in light of those efforts, some district courts in California have concluded that fairness and comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access claims under the Unruh Act.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a merits ruling and not a dismissal. The court has not yet declined jurisdiction over anything. It directed Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims, citing 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c). To explain its concern, the court quoted Schutza v. Cuddeback, in which a Southern District of California court declined supplemental jurisdiction as a matter of comity so that a high-frequency litigant could not use federal court as an end-around to California's pleading requirements. It also quoted Arroyo v. Rosas, where the Ninth Circuit held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that California's distinctive rules would be rendered ineffectual, presenting exceptional circumstances under section 1367(c)(4).
The order sets conditions for the response. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks, and Plaintiff and his counsel must support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that supply the facts needed to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The response is due October 29, 2026. If Plaintiff fails to respond timely or adequately, the court may, without further warning, decline supplemental jurisdiction over the three state-law claims and dismiss them under section 1367(c). The order does not say whether such a dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The order is an interim directive, and the court has not decided whether it will keep or decline the state-law claims.
- Plaintiff must state the statutory damages he seeks, and Plaintiff and his counsel must file sworn declarations on high-frequency litigant status by October 29, 2026.
- A late or inadequate response may result in the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims being dismissed without further warning.
- The order does not address the ADA injunctive relief claim, so nothing in it resolves or dismisses that claim.
- As an unreported minute order, it has no precedential weight; it shows the court's approach and the authorities it relies on.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district judge raising the Arroyo concern at the outset of a case, before any motion, and demanding a sworn showing about litigant status and damages rather than relying on the pleading alone. The court's stated reasoning rests on state policy: California's verified-pleading rule and high-frequency litigant provisions would be undercut if a plaintiff could pursue the same Unruh Act damages in federal court without those requirements.
For practitioners, the order signals that a plaintiff pairing an ADA injunctive claim with state damages claims in this court may need to justify the federal forum and disclose filing history. Much remains open: Plaintiff's response, whether the court will decline jurisdiction, whether Plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant, and what happens to the ADA claim. As an unreported minute order, it carries no precedential weight.