Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ana Ventura sued Maison Nail Spa Silverlake, Inc. and others in the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeks injunctive relief on that claim. It also seeks damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code sections 51 to 53, and asks the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. section 1367. The order makes no findings about whether any barrier existed or whether any violation occurred.
The court explains that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not a plaintiff's right, citing City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997). Section 1367(c) lets a district court decline jurisdiction where a claim raises a novel or complex state-law issue, substantially predominates over the federal claims, remains after all federal claims are dismissed, or presents exceptional circumstances with other compelling reasons. The court adds that it must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity at every stage of the litigation, quoting Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988).
The court points to California's 2012 heightened pleading standard for construction-related accessibility claims. That standard requires a verified complaint stating the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred, and the date of each encounter or deterrence (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 425.50). It also notes the high-frequency litigant fee adopted in 2015 (Cal. Gov't Code section 70616.5). It cites Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017), where another district court declined supplemental jurisdiction as a matter of comity, and says district courts in California have concluded that fairness and comity counsel against exercising jurisdiction over such claims.
The Court’s Holding
This is an in-chambers order to show cause, not a ruling on the merits and not a dismissal. The court has not yet declined supplemental jurisdiction, and it has not found that Ventura or her counsel is a high-frequency litigant. It orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any related state-law claims.
The response must state the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff and counsel must also support it with declarations signed under penalty of perjury that provide all facts needed to decide whether they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order sets a response deadline of fourteen days, which the docket entry lists as October 28, 2026.
The court warns that an untimely or inadequate response may lead it to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act claim and related state claims without further notice under section 1367(c). Such a dismissal would rest on declining jurisdiction rather than on the merits, and the order does not address the ADA injunctive relief claim. The court may set a hearing after reviewing the responses.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a preliminary show-cause directive, and the court has not yet decided whether to keep or decline the Unruh Act claim.
- Plaintiff must state the statutory damages sought and file sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel addressing high-frequency litigant status under section 425.55.
- A failure to respond timely or adequately could lead to dismissal of the Unruh Act and related state claims without further notice, based on the court declining supplemental jurisdiction rather than on a merits ruling.
- The order treats California's verified pleading requirement and high-frequency litigant fee as considerations of fairness and comity in the section 1367(c) analysis.
- As an unreported minute order, it has no precedential weight and does not bind other courts.
Why It Matters
The order reflects a practice among California federal courts of scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act damages claims joined with federal ADA claims, because state law imposes pleading and fee requirements aimed at abusive filings. By requiring sworn disclosures before deciding, the court builds a record for its comity analysis rather than presuming that jurisdiction should be exercised.
Practitioners should note that this is an unpublished, case-specific minute order with no precedential weight. Its practical lesson is that plaintiffs and counsel in accessibility cases should be ready to document their filing history and damages demand early. What remains open is whether the court will retain or decline the state claim after reviewing Plaintiff's response, and what happens to the ADA claim if the state claim is dismissed.