Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER ESCAMILLA 2:26−cv−07736−DSF−DSR

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

CHARLIE BROWN FARMS, INC., et

al.

Defendant(s).

The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out

of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§

12010-12213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights

Act (Unruh Act), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. It appears that the Court possesses only

supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state law claim

that plaintiff may have alleged pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

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.”’ City of Chicago v. Int’l

Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

California has a statutory regime to address “high-frequency litigants” bringing

construction-related disability access claims. This includes specific pleading

requirements and a higher filing fee for litigants who meet certain criteria. See Cal.

Civ. Code § 55.31(b); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

425.55; Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5. Numerous district courts have found that this

California legislative attempt to regulate the prosecution of disability access cases

by certain high-frequency plaintiffs provides “compelling reasons” and constitutes

an “exceptional circumstance” justifying the decline of supplemental jurisdiction

over disability state law claims in certain cases. This approach has been upheld by

the Ninth Circuit multiple times. See Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022);

Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021).

The Court therefore 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to

this Order to Show Cause, plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages

plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel shall also support their

responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of

perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the

definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure

Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than

August 14, 2026 . Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show

Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action

without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 31, 2026

Dale S. Fischer

United States District Judge