Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, a married Case No.: 25-cv-2858-GPC-BLM man dealing with his sole and separate 12 claim, ORDER DECLINING 13 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 LHO MISSION BAY HOTEL LP, a 16 California limited partnership, 17 Defendant. 18 19 Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum (“Plaintiff”), who uses a wheelchair to ambulate, 20 seeks injunctive relief for Defendant LHO Mission Bay Hotel LP (“Defendant”)’s alleged 21 violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights 22 Act. See ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff also seeks damages under the Unruh Act. See 23 id. His core grievance is that “Defendant’s hotel does not have a compliant access aisle at 24 the passenger loading zone adjacent to the hotel lobby.” Compl. ¶ 7. The Court ordered 25 Plaintiff to show why supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim is proper, and he 26 timely responded. ECF No. 16. For the reasons below, the Court DECLINES to exercise 27 supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim. 28 / / / 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims that are “so 3 related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the 4 same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 5 1367(a). Even if such a related claim exists, declining supplemental jurisdiction is 6 appropriate when “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the 7 claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court 8 has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has 9 original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling 10 reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c). “While discretion to decline to exercise 11 supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is triggered by the presence of one of the 12 conditions in § 1367(c), it is informed by the Gibbs values ‘of economy, convenience, 13 fairness, and comity.’” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). 14 II. DISCUSSION1 15 The ADA and Unruh Act have identical substantive rules, meaning that “every 16 violation of the ADA in California is automatically a violation of the Unruh Act.” 17 However, California has included additional remedies and requirements for disability 18 claims. First, where the ADA permits a plaintiff to only seek injunctive relief, the Unruh 19 Act permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover injunctive relief and at least $4,000 in 20 damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). 21 Additionally, in an effort to deter baseless and vexatious litigation, California 22 enacted heightened pleading requirements for a construction-related accessibility claim 23 under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50. California also imposed an 24 additional $1,000 filing fee for any high-frequency litigant. See Cal. Gov't Code § 25 26 27 1 The Court notes that Plaintiff did not abide to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and submitted a response that was over 4 pages long. However, the Court will consider the 28 1 70616.5. High frequency litigants are defined as a “plaintiff who has filed 10 or more 2 complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month 3 period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint” alleging the 4 same. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). These additional requirements and fees 5 for drafting and filing a complaint only applies in California state courts. See Arroyo v. 6 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2021). 7 Given that the sole remedy under the ADA is injunctive relief, which is already 8 available under Unruh, the sole advantage to being in federal court seems to be avoiding 9 state-imposed pleading requirements. See Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 10 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017); Gastelum v. CWI 2 La Jolla Hotel LP, No. 25-CV-2852-LL-BJW, 11 2025 WL 3085724, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2025). Many plaintiffs and their attorneys 12 have attempted to capitalize on this pathway. Specifically, plaintiffs and their attorneys 13 have flooded district courts with Unruh state claims paired with ADA claims to serve as 14 the federal-jurisdiction foothold. Gastelum, 2025 WL 3085724, at *1; Arroyo v. Rosas, 15 19 F.4th 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he number of ADA cases filed in the U.S. 16 District Court for the Central District of California jumped from 419 (3 percent of all 17 civil actions filed) in 2013 to 2,720 (18 percent of civil cases) in 2018. Indeed, the trend 18 continued in fiscal year 2019, when the number of ADA cases in the Central District 19 increased to 3,374 (nearly 22 percent of civil cases).”). 20 Here, Plaintiff has filed well over the 10 requisite complaints alleging a 21 construction-related accessibility violation within the past year to make him a high- 22 frequency litigant.2 ECF No. 16 at 1. Plaintiff has filed dozens of construction-related 23 24 25 2 Plaintiff argues that his counsel “has only represented two plaintiffs in ADA accessibility claims and does not meet the 10-plaintiff threshold to be an attorney high- 26 frequency litigant.” ECF No. 16 at 1. This makes reference to the fact that a high- 27 frequency litigant can mean “[a]n attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12- 28 1 accessibility cases in this district over the recent years, along with dozens more across 2 California's three other district courts. See Gastelum, 2025 WL 3085724, at *1. 3 California has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens and businesses from 4 abusive litigation and in preventing its own laws from unjust circumvention, which is 5 why changes to the Unruh Act were made. The state legislature found some plaintiffs' 6 attorneys abused the Act by targeting “small businesses on the basis of boilerplate 7 complaints” to pursue “quick cash settlements rather than correction of the accessibility 8 violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(a)(2). This practice also “unfairly taints the 9 reputation of other innocent disabled consumers.” Id. Therefore, the Court finds that the 10 interests of comity and fairness disfavor supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh 11 claim. See Schutza, 262 F. Supp. 3d at 1031 (“As a high-frequency litigant primarily 12 seeking relief under state law, the Court finds it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to 13 use federal court as an end-around to California's pleading requirements. Therefore, as a 14 matter of comity, and in deference to California's substantial interest in discouraging 15 unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction 16 over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim.”). 17 Additionally, Plaintiff’s actions constitute forum shopping, which also disfavors 18 supplemental jurisdiction. See id. (“Plaintiff is engaging in forum-shopping by bringing 19 his action in federal court and attempting to avoid California's heightened pleading 20 requirements for disability discrimination claims.”); Org. for the Advancement of 21 Minorities v. Brick Oven Rest., 406 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1132 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (“Because a 22 legitimate function of the federal courts is to discourage forum shopping and California 23 24 25 construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). However, while Plaintiff’s counsel does not meet the definition of a high-frequency 26 litigant, Plaintiff himself does. See id. § 425.55(b)(1) (A high-frequency litigant can mean 27 “[a] plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the 28 1 courts should interpret California law, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to 2 decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims.”). 3 Finally, courts routinely decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims after 4 finding they “substantially predominate” over ADA claims. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Ara 5 Lebanese Grill, No. 18-cv-1497-AJB-WVG, 2019 WL 1057919, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6 6, 2019) (listing cases). This Court finds the same. “Plaintiff and [his] out-of-state 7 attorney are primarily seeking quick cash settlements rather than correction of any 8 accessibility violations, a more or less shakedown that they seek to obtain through 9 bargaining in the shadow of the Unruh Act.” Brooke v. Sesode LLC, No. 25-cv-0676-LL- 10 MMP, 2025 WL 1100897, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2025). 11 Accordingly, declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh claim is 12 appropriate. Plaintiff's boilerplate response to the Court's Order to Show Cause does not 13 credibly suggest otherwise.3 See generally ECF No. 16. 14 / / / 15 / / / 16 / / / 17 18 19 3 Plaintiff also attempts to argue that California’s special procedural requirements are preempted by federal law because they provide for lesser and unequal protection of a 20 disabled person’s rights. ECF No. 16 at 5; see 42 U.S.C. § 12201 (“Nothing in this 21 chapter shall be construed to invalidate or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any Federal law or law of any State or political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction 22 that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities 23 than are afforded by this chapter.” (emphasis added)). However, as held in Arroyo and discussed above, these heightened requirements are “aimed at limiting suits by high- 24 frequency litigants,” not disabled persons generally. Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 25 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). These requirements target abuses of the Unruh Act by a very small number of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ attorneys who “unfairly taint[] the reputation of other 26 innocent disabled consumers who are merely trying to go about their daily lives accessing 27 public accommodations as they are entitled to.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55; see id. at 1206-07. Thus, these procedural requirements do not provide lesser and unequal 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 3 || Unruh claim, which is now dismissed without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 12, 2026 72 st 6 Hon. athe Cee 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28