Darren Gilbert v. Singh, 1:21-cv-01338

Plaintiff Darren Gilbert sued business owners Paramjit and Robby Singh (Super Mac Food & Gas #2) under Title III of the ADA, the California Unruh Act, and Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, 19959, seeking damages, fees, and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff moved for default judgment; a magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending default judgment and gave a 14-day objection period; Plaintiff filed a certificate of service; Defendants did not object.
After the Ninth Circuit decisions in Vo and Arroyo, the district court recognized that California imposes heightened filing/pleading requirements on "construction-related accessibility" litigants and that those decisions justified reconsideration of supplemental jurisdiction.
The court concluded that Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 claims qualify as "construction-related accessibility claims" under California law and therefore implicate the same state procedural policies as Unruh Act accessibility claims.
The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the court should continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims; failure to respond will be treated as non-opposition to declining jurisdiction.
The court left the default-judgment motion and the pending Findings and Recommendations unresolved pending the show-cause response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim given Vo	Gilbert wants the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction and enter default judgment	No objections filed / Defendants silent	Court ordered Gilbert to show cause; did not retain jurisdiction yet and paused default-judgment resolution
Whether Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19959 are "construction-related accessibility claims" subject to California's heightened filing/pleading rules	Gilbert seeks to proceed in federal court on these state claims	No objections filed / Defendants silent	Court concluded §§ 19955 and 19959 are construction-related accessibility claims and ordered show cause on supplemental jurisdiction
Effect of California's heightened filing/pleading regime on supplemental jurisdiction	Gilbert implicitly argues federal forum is appropriate despite state rules	Defendants silent; state policy favors declining jurisdiction for high-frequency litigants	Court found Vo/Arroyo persuasive that these state policies are exceptional circumstances and warrant addressing jurisdictional retention
Consequences of failing to respond to the show-cause order	Gilbert must timely justify retention or risk losing state claims in federal court	Defendants silent	Court warned that failure to respond will be treated as non-opposition to declining supplemental jurisdiction; default-judgment motion remains pending until resolution

Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (Ninth Circuit upheld declining supplemental jurisdiction over accessibility-related Unruh Act claims due to California's heightened procedural regime)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (describing California's heightened filing and pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and treating them as "exceptional circumstances" for § 1367(c)(4))