Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
German Perez sued Arroyo Building Materials and other defendants in federal court asserting an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility claim and a supplemental Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. Perez requested that the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
California has a regulatory regime for construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act, including heightened pleading requirements and a special “high-frequency litigant” fee. These rules apply only in state court; high-frequency plaintiffs litigating in federal court can effectively bypass them by invoking supplemental jurisdiction. The Central District has developed a body of decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims by high-frequency plaintiffs to honor California’s state-court procedures.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha issued an Order to Show Cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Perez’s Unruh Act and related state-law claims. Citing § 1367(c) and Schutza v. Cuddeback, the court explained that allowing high-frequency plaintiffs to bring Unruh claims in federal court would “allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements,” contrary to comity and California’s “substantial interest in discouraging unverified disability discrimination claims.”
Perez was ordered to file a response within 14 days identifying his statutory damages claim and providing a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing whether he qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant” under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1)-(2). Failure to respond timely or adequately could result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in this District routinely use OSC orders to evaluate whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims by high-frequency ADA plaintiffs.
- Under § 1367(c)(4), the court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in “exceptional circumstances” — including where a state has a substantial interest in regulating high-frequency accessibility litigation through state-court procedures.
- A high-frequency litigant must declare their statutory damages claim and confirm whether they meet California’s definition (10 or more construction-related accessibility claims in the prior 12 months).
- Schutza v. Cuddeback is a key authority for declining supplemental jurisdiction in these cases.
- Federal ADA claims continue regardless; only the supplemental state-law Unruh and related claims are at risk of dismissal.
Why It Matters
OSC orders questioning supplemental jurisdiction are now a fixture of high-frequency ADA practice in the Central District. They reflect the District’s settled view that California’s heightened pleading and high-frequency-litigant fee scheme should not be circumvented by routing Unruh damages claims through federal court.
For ADA plaintiffs, the practical implication is that the federal forum is increasingly inhospitable to combined ADA-and-Unruh claims by repeat litigants. Plaintiffs may need to bring the federal ADA claim in federal court (for injunctive relief) and the state-law Unruh damages claim separately in state court (where heightened pleading rules and special fees apply).