Kenneth Davidson v. Victor J. Yniguez, 2:22-cv-03875

Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson filed suit asserting an ADA claim (injunctive relief), an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim (damages), and other state-law claims.
Federal jurisdiction for the Unruh claim is pleaded solely as supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The Court noted Ninth Circuit guidance (Arroyo v. Rosas) that district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh claims because of substantial federal–state comity concerns.
The Court has a sua sponte duty to confirm subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore must evaluate whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to state (1) the amount of Unruh statutory damages sought and (2) facts, by declaration under penalty of perjury, sufficient to determine whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a “high-frequency litigant” under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
The Response deadline was June 23, 2022; failure to timely or adequate respond may result in dismissal without prejudice or the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims	Davidson relies on § 1367(a) to adjudicate Unruh and state claims alongside the ADA federal claim	No responsive position in record; Court cites comity concerns identified in precedent	Court ordered Davidson to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and warned it may decline jurisdiction or dismiss if response is inadequate
Whether Plaintiff must state the amount of Unruh statutory damages sought	Plaintiff had not specified the amount in the complaint	Not asserted by defendant in the record	Court requires Plaintiff to state the amount sought for Unruh damages in the OSC response
Whether Plaintiff or counsel are "high-frequency litigants" under Cal. CCP § 425.55(b)	Plaintiff must provide facts/declarations to establish status (or not) as a high-frequency litigant	Not asserted by defendant in the record	Court requires declarations under penalty of perjury with sufficient facts to determine high-frequency litigant status
Whether the court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte	N/A — Plaintiff proceeded without satisfying jurisdictional prerequisites	N/A	Court reaffirmed its sua sponte obligation to confirm jurisdiction and acted by issuing the OSC (citing Ninth Circuit authority)

Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of substantial federal–state comity concerns)
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (a court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time)
Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (same principle regarding sua sponte inquiry into jurisdiction)