Bryan Williams v. F. Richard Digiorgio, 8:19-cv-01751

Plaintiff Bryan Williams filed suit alleging (1) an ADA claim seeking injunctive relief and (2) a state-law Unruh Act claim seeking damages.
California law (since 2012) imposes heightened pleading rules for "construction-related accessibility" claims and special requirements/fees for "high-frequency litigants."
A "construction-related accessibility claim" is defined broadly under California law to include claims under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55 based on alleged construction-related accessibility standard violations.
"High-frequency litigant" (applies to plaintiffs and attorneys) means a plaintiff who has filed 10+ construction-related accessibility complaints in the prior 12 months; such litigants face extra fees and pleading burdens.
The Court noted that plaintiffs who bring state Unruh Act damage claims in federal court may evade California's statutory limits and procedural restrictions.
The Court issued an order to show cause directing Plaintiff, within 10 days, to explain why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim, to state the statutory damages sought, and to provide declarations (under penalty of perjury) from Plaintiff and counsel about high-frequency-litigant status; failure to comply could lead to dismissal or the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Federal ADA claim supports exercising supplemental jurisdiction; Unruh claim should proceed here	State law restrictions and policy warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction because federal forum allows evasion of California limits	Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction and to supply specified information; did not yet decline jurisdiction but signaled discretion to do so
Whether Plaintiff must disclose amount of statutory damages sought	Plaintiff may not need to specify damages at this stage	Court needs amount to assess the nature and impact of the state claim	Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages amount sought
Whether Plaintiff and counsel are "high-frequency litigants" and must provide declarations	Plaintiff may dispute high-frequency status or argue disclosures unnecessary	Court must know if heightened rules/fees apply; declarations required to determine status	Court ordered declarations from Plaintiff and counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, providing facts to determine high-frequency status

City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and may consider factors like the nature of the state claim and the relationship between state and federal claims)