Summary
The Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Leemanuel Weilch to show cause why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence law. The Court noted California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for disability-access claims, and directed Plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations addressing those provisions. A response was due January 8, 2026, with failure to respond potentially resulting in dismissal of the state-law claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence.
- What information plaintiff and counsel must provide to allow the court to determine whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including the amount of statutory damages sought and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants.
Key quotations
“The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’”” (at 1)
“In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and Negligence claims.” (at 2)
“Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and Negligence claims and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).” (at 2)
Factual background
The complaint alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and asserted related California claims involving disability access, including claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence. The court focused on California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for disability-access litigation in evaluating whether comity and fairness warranted declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Procedural history
Plaintiff's complaint asserted a federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim for injunctive relief and state-law claims for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence. Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the court ordered plaintiff to respond regarding the statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff and counsel qualified as high-frequency litigants under California law.