Background
Meriah Gardea filed suit against CR Food Management, Inc. and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, and other provisions of California law. The complaint invoked supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims, citing paragraph 7 of the pleading.
On October 28, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause directed at the state-law claims. The order quoted 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) for the proposition that district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims so related to those within original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy, and quoted United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), for the principle that supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right. The court also cited Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990), for the principle that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity should be considered at every stage of the litigation.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims in 2012 through Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1) and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a), and a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 under Cal. Gov't Code 70616.5 for plaintiffs and law firms bringing large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to sidestep those state-law requirements by pursuing claims in a federal forum, the court and other California district courts have declined to exercise such jurisdiction in comparable cases, citing Whitaker v. RCP Belmont Shore LLC and Garibay v. Rodriguez.
A review of the district's docket showed that in the one-year period preceding the complaint, Gardea had filed more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims, meaning she would be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California Superior Court. The court ordered Gardea to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction, requiring a response of no more than ten pages by November 10, 2026, identifying the statutory damages sought and including a declaration under penalty of perjury providing the evidence necessary for the court to determine whether she meets the high-frequency litigant definition in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) and (2). Defendant may also file a response by November 17, 2026. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Key Takeaways
- The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her Unruh Act and other state-law accessibility claims.
- A docket review showed the plaintiff filed more than ten construction-related accessibility actions in the prior year, which would make her a high-frequency litigant under California law.
- The court reasoned that exercising supplemental jurisdiction would let high-frequency plaintiffs circumvent California's heightened pleading requirements and filing fees by choosing a federal forum.
- The plaintiff must file a response of up to ten pages by November 10, 2026, stating the statutory damages sought and providing a perjury-signed declaration with the evidence necessary for the court to determine her high-frequency litigant status.
- Failure to respond may lead to dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Why It Matters
This order reflects an ongoing practice among California federal district courts of scrutinizing supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought by serial accessibility plaintiffs. By invoking California's high-frequency litigant reforms, the court signaled that federal courts should not serve as a forum for avoiding state-imposed pleading and fee requirements designed to curb repetitive construction-related accessibility litigation.
The decision is procedural rather than a final disposition: no claims were dismissed, and the plaintiff retains an opportunity to justify retaining the state-law claims in federal court. The outcome will turn on her showing regarding damages sought and her litigation history, with the matter to be taken under submission upon receipt of the responses and a written order to issue thereafter.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket