Brett DeSalvo v. River Jetty Restaurant Group, LLC, 8:20-cv-02374

Plaintiff sued for injunctive relief under the ADA and for damages under California's Unruh Act (a state-law construction-related accessibility claim).
The court issued an in-chambers Order to Show Cause whether it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The Order explains California's heightened pleading rules (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52 et seq.) for construction-related accessibility claims and special rules for “high-frequency litigants” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55), which can include plaintiffs and attorneys.
The court noted that plaintiffs who bring Unruh damages in federal court can evade California’s limits on such claims and that § 1367(c) gives federal courts discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction based on factors including the nature and relationship of the state law claims.
The court directed Plaintiff, within 10 days, to (1) state the amount of statutory damages sought and (2) submit declarations under penalty of perjury from Plaintiff and counsel with facts needed to determine whether either is a high-frequency litigant.
The Order warns that failure to respond may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice under Rule 41(b), and that an inadequate response will result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Plaintiff will argue federal adjudication is appropriate and state damages can be heard here	No defendant argument on record / not present	Court ordered show-cause; asked Plaintiff to justify exercising supplemental jurisdiction and to provide targeted disclosures; signaled possible declination under §1367(c)
Whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a “high-frequency litigant”	Plaintiff will assert they are not a high-frequency litigant (or must prove otherwise)	No defendant argument on record	Court required sworn declarations to determine high-frequency status
What amount of Unruh statutory damages Plaintiff seeks	Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought	No defendant argument on record	Court ordered Plaintiff to state the amount of statutory damages sought
Consequences for noncompliance with the Order to Show Cause	Plaintiff may request more time or contest dismissal	No defendant argument on record	Court warned failure to comply may lead to dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b); inadequate response will lead to declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim under §1367(c)

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction; factors include nature of state law claims and relationship to federal claims)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district courts may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court orders and outlining standards for dismissal)