Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bernard Taruc sued Antonio Padilla 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 observed that it appears to have only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and over any other state law claim the plaintiff may have pleaded, under 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a). These are the complaint's allegations as described by the court. The order decides nothing about whether any violation occurred.
The court noted that a federal court weighs judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every stage when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons and Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill. It then pointed to California's regime for high-frequency litigants bringing construction-related disability access claims, which includes heightened pleading requirements and a higher filing fee. The order cites Civil Code section 55.31(b), Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.50 and 425.55, and Government Code section 70616.5. It states that numerous district courts have found this regime supplies compelling reasons and an exceptional circumstance for declining supplemental jurisdiction in certain cases, and that the Ninth Circuit has upheld that approach in Vo v. Choi and Arroyo v. Rosas.
The Court’s Holding
This is an order to show cause, not a ruling on the merits or a decision to decline jurisdiction. The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim in the complaint, citing section 1367(c). The plaintiff must state the amount of statutory damages he seeks. The plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel must also support their responses with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that provide all facts the court needs to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The response is due November 12, 2026. The court warned that failure to respond timely or adequately may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, or in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any other state law claims and dismissing those claims under section 1367(c). These are stated possibilities, not rulings. Nothing has been dismissed, and the court has made no finding that the plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant. The order does not address the ADA claim beyond describing it.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a procedural directive asking the plaintiff to justify federal retention of the state claim. It does not decide whether jurisdiction will be declined.
- Both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's counsel must submit sworn declarations by November 12, 2026, with facts bearing on high-frequency litigant status.
- The plaintiff must disclose the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act.
- The court identified two possible consequences of an inadequate response: dismissal of the whole action without prejudice, or declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state claims.
- The order cites Vo v. Choi and Arroyo v. Rosas as Ninth Circuit authority for the approach, but it announces no new holding.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates a routine screening step in federal disability access cases in California. Courts use such orders to gather the information needed to decide whether a state-law damages claim, which is subject to California's special procedural rules for high-frequency litigants, should proceed alongside a federal injunctive claim. The practical question for the parties is whether the Unruh Act damages claim stays in federal court or is left to state court.
Because this is an unpublished order to show cause from a single district judge, it carries no precedential weight and does not predict the outcome. Still open are the plaintiff's response, whether the plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, the statutory damages sought, and whether the court will exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction.