Automated Summary
Key Facts
This is an Order to Show Cause in a disability rights case where Plaintiff Michael Rhambo alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act regarding construction-related accessibility. The Court must determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, given that Plaintiff has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility claims in the past year, making him a 'high-frequency litigant' under California law. Plaintiff must respond by July 21, 2025 with evidence demonstrating why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised.
Issues
This order addresses whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims including violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court notes that California has imposed heightened pleading requirements and a 'high-frequency litigant fee' for plaintiffs bringing construction-related accessibility claims. The plaintiff has filed more than ten construction-related accessibility claims in the preceding year, potentially making them a high-frequency litigant. The court orders the plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined, requiring them to demonstrate they meet the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the state-law claims.
Legal Principles
The court considers whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not plaintiff's right. Courts should consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. California's Unruh Act and Code of Civil Procedure § 425.50 impose heightened pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and California Government Code 70616.5 imposes a high-frequency litigant fee. Plaintiffs who are deemed high-frequency litigants may side-step these requirements by pursuing claims in federal forum, so many district courts decline supplemental jurisdiction in such cases.
Precedent Name
- Garibay v. Rodriguez
- Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs.
- Perri v. Thrifty Payless
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs
- Whitaker v. RCP Belmont Shore LLC
Cited Statute
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)
- Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50
- Unruh Act
- 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)
- ADA
Judge Name
Judge John A. Kronstadt
Passage Text
- A review of the docket in this District shows that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which he has advanced construction-related accessibility claims.
- Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or before July 21, 2025.
- In 2012, California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims. In 2015, California also imposed a 'high-frequency litigant fee' for plaintiffs and law firms that have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims.