Summary
The court orders the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California disability-access statutes and negligence, alongside an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The order discusses 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California’s heightened pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and high-frequency litigant provisions. Plaintiff must respond by October 3, 2025, including the amount of statutory damages sought and declarations addressing high-frequency litigant criteria.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and other related California state-law claims.
- What information plaintiff and counsel must provide so the court can determine whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including the amount of statutory damages sought and high-frequency-litigant information.
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)
“However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiffs right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.”” (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 claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint.” (at 3)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged disability-access violations supporting an ADA claim and related California claims for damages. The state-law claims included an Unruh Act claim involving alleged construction-related accessibility barriers. The court focused on California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency-litigant provisions for disability-access litigation.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence law. The court ordered plaintiff to respond in writing by October 3, 2025, including the amount of statutory damages sought and declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualified as high-frequency litigants. The court warned that failure to respond could result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).