Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 8:26-cv-01414-MRA-JDE Date August 24, 2026

Title Robert Mena v. Village Gallery, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig None Present

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT

SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER

PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS

On June 2, 2026, Plaintiff Robert Mena filed this action against Defendants Village

Gallery, Inc., Benjamin Brown, and Does | to 10, asserting claims for (1) injunctive relief under

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) damages pursuant

to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53; (3) damages

pursuant to California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54; (4) damages and injunctive

relief pursuant to California’s Health and Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; and (5) negligence. ECF

1.

Plaintiff maintains that the Court has “pendant [sic] jurisdiction” over the state law claims.

Id. 7; see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, that a court may exercise pendent or supplemental

jurisdiction “does not mean that jurisdiction must be exercised in all cases.” City of Chicago v.

Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997). The Supreme Court has recognized that

supplemental jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's choice.” Jd. (quoting

United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966)). The supplemental jurisdiction

statute enumerates the following situations in which a district court can decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction:

(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially

predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original

jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original

jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons

for declining jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). “The statute thereby 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 litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 8:26-cv-01414-MRA-JDE Date August 24, 2026

Title Robert Mena v. Village Gallery, Inc., et al.

Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. at 173 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343,

350 (1988)).

The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that a “confluence of several California-law rules

ha[s] combined to create a highly unusual systemic impact on ADA-based Unruh Act cases that

clearly threatens to have a significant adverse impact on federal-state comity.” Arroyo v. Rosas,

19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the ADA, the only remedy available to a private

litigant is prospective injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a). However, in passing the Unruh

Act, California “chose a different route” and created “a state law cause of action that relies

dispositively on the ADA’s substantive rules but that expands the remedies available in a private

action.” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211; see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52(a), 55.56(a), 55.56(f). This shift

resulted in ADA-Unruh Act lawsuits “frequently target[ing] ‘small businesses on the basis of

boilerplate complaints’ to pursue ‘quick cash settlements rather than correction of the accessibility

violation.”” Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1207 (quoting Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(a)(2)).

To address “concern[s] that high-frequency litigants may be using the [Unruh Act] to

obtain monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure

accessibility to others,” California implemented a series of procedural reforms. Jd. at 1211-12.

In 2012, the Legislature adopted a heightened pleading standard for any “construction-related

accessibility claim” under the Unruh Act, as defined at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 55.52(a)(1). See

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a) (2013). The special pleading rules require any plaintiff bringing

a “construction-related accessibility claim” to file a verified complaint containing specific facts

“sufficient to allow a reasonable person to identify the basis of the violation or violations

supporting the[ir] claim.” Jd. §§ 425.50(a)(1)-(3), (b)(1). In 2015, the Legislature imposed

additional requirements on “high-frequency litigant(s),” as defined at Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

425.55(b)(1)-(2). See Arroyo, 19 F Ath at 1207. Under the stricter pleading standard, a “high-

frequency litigant” must also disclose:

(1) whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2)

in the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints

alleging construction-related accessibility claims filed by the high-frequency

litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the

individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason

why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.

Id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A)) (2015). The Legislature also imposed a “high-frequency litigant fee,”

above and beyond the ordinary civil filing fee. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5 (2015).

In recognition of California’s efforts to reduce the abuse of California’s disability access

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. 8:26-cv-01414-MRA-JDE Date August 24, 2026

Title Robert Mena v. Village Gallery, Inc., et al.

laws, district courts within the state have determined that the interests of fairness and comity

counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over “construction-related accessibility

claims” under the Unruh Act, as well as related state law claims, brought by a “high-frequency

litigant.” See, e.g., Whitaker v. Mac, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (declining to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claims because doing so would

allow plaintiff to “circumvent restrictions California has imposed on Unruh Act claims”); Sehutza

v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (finding that it would be improper to

allow plaintiff, a high-frequency litigant, to “use federal court as an end-around to California’s

pleading requirements”); see also Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211 (holding that the district court’s

“principal justification” for declining supplemental jurisdiction—that “the distinctive

configuration of California-law rules” would be “rendered ineffectual if the district court were to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction”—was not an abuse of discretion).

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why

the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law

claims in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause:

1. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought.

2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall support their Response with declarations, signed

under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if

Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel meet the definition of “high-frequency litigant” as

provided by California Civil Procedure Code section 425.55(b)(1)-(2). This includes,

but is not limited to:

a. The number of “construction-related accessibility claims” filed by Plaintiff in

the 12 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and

b. The number of “construction-related accessibility claims” in which Plaintiffs

counsel has represented “high-frequency litigant” plaintiffs in the 12 months

preceding the filing of the present claim.

Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause no later than 14 days from

the date of this Order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause

may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk mku