{"id":426,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=426"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"perez-arroyo-building-cd-cal-osc-supplemental-jurisdiction-high-frequency-unruh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=426","title":{"rendered":"Perez v. Arroyo Building Materials \u2014 C.D. Cal. Issues OSC on Supplemental Jurisdiction Over Unruh Act Claim by High-Frequency ADA Litigant"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Perez v. Arroyo Building Materials, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-12349<\/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; Schutza v. Cuddeback<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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. \u00a7 1367.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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 \u00a7 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.”<\/p>\n

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. \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n