Background
Mister Bailey filed suit against Mahmudshah Ayub in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California asserting a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint also included claims under the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Dolly M. Gee.
On November 5, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order to show cause addressing whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The court acknowledged that it appeared to have supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim, but raised concerns about whether exercising that jurisdiction would be appropriate given California's policy interests in regulating disability access litigation.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that the supplemental jurisdiction statute requires federal courts to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of litigation. It noted that California adopted a heightened pleading standard in 2012 for Unruh Act construction-access claims, requiring verified complaints with specific facts about barriers encountered and dates of each encounter. California also imposed a high-frequency litigant fee in 2015 in response to certain plaintiffs and law firms filing an outsized number of Unruh Act lawsuits.
Citing Schutza v. Cuddeback and Arroyo v. Rosas, the court observed that some district courts within California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access claims brought under the Unruh Act based on fairness and comity concerns. The court noted the Ninth Circuit's holding in Arroyo that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction where California's distinctive rules would be rendered ineffectual, constituting exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4).
The court ordered Bailey to show cause in writing by November 16, 2026, why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. The court required Bailey to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to support his response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury providing all facts necessary to determine if he and his counsel satisfy the definition of high-frequency litigant under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissal of the state-law claims.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts in California are increasingly scrutinizing whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state disability access claims, particularly when plaintiffs may be high-frequency litigants.
- California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant fee reflect the state's policy interest in reducing abusive disability access litigation, and federal courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction to prevent plaintiffs from circumventing these state requirements.
- A plaintiff facing an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction must provide specific information about statutory damages sought and declarations addressing high-frequency litigant status under penalty of perjury.
- The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims can constitute exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) when exercising jurisdiction would render California's distinctive rules ineffectual.
- Failure to adequately respond to an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction may result in dismissal of state-law claims without further warning.
Why It Matters
This order reflects ongoing tension between federal supplemental jurisdiction and California's efforts to regulate disability access litigation through heightened pleading standards and fees targeting high-frequency litigants. By requiring the plaintiff to justify why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and to disclose information relevant to high-frequency litigant status, the court is ensuring that federal jurisdiction does not become a tool to evade state procedural requirements designed to curb vexatious litigation.
The order also demonstrates how district courts are implementing the Ninth Circuit's guidance in Arroyo v. Rosas, which recognized that comity concerns can justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims. Practitioners bringing disability access cases in federal court must be prepared to address supplemental jurisdiction issues early and to provide detailed information about their litigation history and the specific damages sought.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket