Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC, 1:24-cv-01457

Plaintiff Jose Escobedo filed suit against El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC and Flipside Christian Church, alleging accessibility barriers at a restaurant he visited.
Claims include violations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code.
Plaintiff alleges physical access barriers such as a lack of accessible parking and uneven walkways.
The court noted that Escobedo is a "high-frequency litigant," having filed more than ten construction-related accessibility lawsuits in the prior year.
Recent Ninth Circuit precedent questions whether federal courts should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over California's more generous state law claims in similar circumstances, especially to prevent circumvention of state law procedural safeguards for such claims.
The court issued an order for Escobedo to justify why his state law claims should remain in federal court, rather than be dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law accessibility claims in addition to the ADA claim?	Likely contends federal and state claims are related and should proceed together.	Likely contends state law claims should be heard in state court due to heightened state procedures for high-frequency litigants.	Plaintiff must show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised; if not shown, state claims may be dismissed.
Application of California's high-frequency litigant procedural requirements in federal court	Plaintiff seeks to maintain federal jurisdiction to avoid state procedures.	Defendants argue federal court should not allow circumvention of stricter state procedures.	Court expresses concern about comity and potential circumvention of state requirements; considers declining jurisdiction.
Whether repeated filing of accessibility suits triggers special scrutiny under Unruh Act	Plaintiff may argue repeated suits address ongoing barriers.	Defendants argue plaintiff's status invokes state filing and pleading restrictions.	Court finds plaintiff meets high-frequency threshold; heightened scrutiny applies.
Consequence of failing to respond to court’s order to show cause	Plaintiff may seek to justify retention of state law claims.	Defendants likely favor dismissal if plaintiff does not respond.	Failure to adequately respond may result in dismissal of state claims without prejudice.

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing California’s policy response to high-frequency ADA litigants and procedural requirements)
Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (upholding district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law accessibility claims in ADA suit)