Background
Clifton Walker sued Edgar Amilcar Obando and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:26-cv-11495-JAK-AYP. The complaint alleges 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, and it invokes supplemental jurisdiction as the basis for the state-law claims. On October 27, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.
The order explains that under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that form part of the same case or controversy as claims within their original jurisdiction, but it stresses that this is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). The court identifies judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity as values to weigh at every stage of the litigation. It then turns to California legislation: heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims imposed in 2012 and a high-frequency litigant fee imposed in 2015 for plaintiffs and law firms bringing large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not dismiss the state-law claims and did not finally resolve supplemental jurisdiction. Instead, it ordered Walker to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court reasoned that accepting supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related accessibility claims would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step California's state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum, and it noted that many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction on that basis.
The court's review of the district docket showed that, in the one-year period preceding the complaint, Walker filed more than ten actions advancing construction-related accessibility claims, so he would be deemed a high-frequency litigant in California Superior Court; the court concluded that California's enactments confirm a substantial state interest in the case. Walker must file a response, not exceeding ten pages, on or before November 10, 2026, identifying the amount of statutory damages he seeks and presenting a declaration signed under penalty of perjury with evidence bearing on the statutory high-frequency-litigant definition. Defendants may respond by November 17, 2026. Failure to respond timely may result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and a written order will issue after the matter is taken under submission.
Key Takeaways
- The order requires Walker to justify continued federal supplemental jurisdiction over his California-law claims rather than finally dismissing them.
- The court relies on California's heightened pleading rules and high-frequency litigant fee as reasons to examine whether federal litigation would bypass state requirements.
- Walker must identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks and provide sworn evidence relevant to whether he meets California's high-frequency-litigant definition.
- Failure to respond timely may lead to dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice under the court's supplemental-jurisdiction authority.
- Defendants may file their own response by November 17, 2026, after which the court will take the matter under submission and issue a written order.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how a federal court can use an order to show cause to examine supplemental jurisdiction before deciding whether state-law accessibility claims should remain in federal court. Its stated concern is the relationship between federal supplemental jurisdiction and California's procedural requirements for high-frequency construction-related accessibility litigation.
The immediate consequence is procedural and evidentiary: Walker must address both his damages demand and his litigation history under penalty of perjury. The ADA claim is not dismissed by this order, and any dismissal of the state-law claims described for noncompliance would be without prejudice. The ultimate jurisdictional decision remains for the later written order.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket