In Sun Kil v. Emile Kheir, 2:21-cv-07982

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, plus related state claims (Disabled Persons Act, Health & Safety Code, negligence).
The Court noted it appears to have supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
California adopted heightened pleading rules and other measures (2012 verified-complaint requirements and a 2015 high-frequency litigant fee) to curb abusive disability-access litigation.
Federal courts in California have recognized comity concerns and, in some cases, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims to avoid allowing plaintiffs to bypass state pleading rules.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Plaintiff to explain why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims and to identify the statutory damages sought.
The Court required declarations (under penalty of perjury) addressing whether Plaintiff qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant” under California law and set an October 25, 2021 deadline, warning that failure to respond could result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissal of the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state Unruh/related claims	Kil implicitly seeks federal forum for state claims alongside ADA claim	Implicitly, defendants prefer federal court adjudication or may rely on jurisdictional rules; court must assess comity	Court ordered Kil to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and to provide requested information; may decline jurisdiction if unanswered
Whether Plaintiff is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law	Kil must demonstrate she is not a high-frequency litigant or explain circumstances	N/A (court-directed inquiry)	Court required sworn declarations with facts necessary to determine high-frequency status
Whether Plaintiff satisfies California’s heightened pleading/verification requirements	Kil must identify specific barriers, dates, deterrence facts and verify complaint per state rules	N/A (court concerned with comity and evasion of state rules)	Court emphasized California’s pleading regime and warned against using federal court to evade it; demanded factual support in response
What damages Plaintiff seeks (statutory amount)	Kil must state amount of statutory damages sought for state claims	N/A	Court ordered Kil to identify the statutory damages sought; failure to do so may lead to dismissal of state claims

City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (recognizing factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (federal courts should weigh comity and other values when deciding supplemental jurisdiction)
Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claim to prevent evasion of California pleading rules)