{"id":358,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=358"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"perez-texis-restaurants-cd-cal-osc-supplemental-jurisdiction-high-frequency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=358","title":{"rendered":"Perez v. Texis Restaurants \u2014 C.D. Cal. Issues OSC on Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Unruh Act Claim by High-Frequency ADA Litigant"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Perez v. Texis Restaurants, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-12324<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367(c)); Americans with Disabilities Act; Unruh Civil Rights Act; California high-frequency litigant statute; comity<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

German Perez sued Texis Restaurants and other defendants in federal court asserting an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility claim and supplemental state-law claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related provisions. The federal claim provides the basis for original jurisdiction; the state claims rely on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367.<\/p>\n

California has imposed special rules on construction-related accessibility claims under the Unruh Act, including heightened pleading requirements (Cal. Civ. Code \u00a7 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. \u00a7 425.50(a)) and a separate “high-frequency litigant” fee for plaintiffs and counsel who have filed at least ten construction-related accessibility actions in the prior 12 months (Cal. Gov’t Code \u00a7 70616.5; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. \u00a7 425.55). The court’s docket review showed Perez had filed more than ten such actions in the year preceding this complaint \u2014 qualifying him as a high-frequency litigant under California law.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge John A. Kronstadt issued an Order to Show Cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Perez’s state-law claims. Citing prior decisions (Whitaker v. RCP Belmont Shore LLC; Garibay v. Rodriguez), the court explained that California’s special rules for construction-related accessibility claims \u2014 heightened pleading and the high-frequency litigant fee \u2014 reflect a substantial state interest in regulating this category of litigation. Allowing high-frequency plaintiffs to bring state-law claims in federal court alongside their ADA claims would let them bypass California’s carefully calibrated state-law procedures.<\/p>\n

Under \u00a7 1367(c), district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction in “exceptional circumstances” or where there are “other compelling reasons.” The Ninth Circuit has held those criteria are satisfied where exercising supplemental jurisdiction would undermine California’s special procedures. Perez was ordered to file a response by January 20, 2026, including a declaration on his statutory damages and his high-frequency-litigant status under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. \u00a7 425.50(b)(1)-(2). Failure to respond timely could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n