Kyu Hwa Back v. Gia Investment Group LLC, 8:21-cv-01239

Plaintiff filed suit asserting federal ADA injunctive relief and state-law claims, including damages under California’s Unruh Act.
The court issued an in-chambers order to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The court explained California’s heightened pleading regime for “construction‑related accessibility” claims and special rules for “high‑frequency litigants,” which limit statutory damages and impose extra filing requirements and fees.
The court expressed concern that bringing Unruh damages claims in federal court can circumvent California’s statutory limits and procedural safeguards.
The court ordered Plaintiff, within 10 days, to (1) state the amount of statutory Unruh damages sought, and (2) submit declarations under penalty of perjury from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel with all facts needed to determine whether either is a “high‑frequency litigant.”
The court warned that failure to respond could lead to dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) or, at minimum, the court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims under § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state claims	Plaintiff seeks to retain state claims alongside ADA claim (to be shown in response)	Defendant not present / no argument on record	Court ordered show-cause; will consider declining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) if response inadequately addresses concerns
Whether Plaintiff or counsel are “high‑frequency litigants” under California law	Plaintiff to submit sworn facts/declarations to prove status (or lack thereof)	Defendant not present	Court required sworn declarations under penalty of perjury to determine high‑frequency status
Whether Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought under the Unruh Act	Plaintiff must state the amount sought in response	Defendant not present	Court ordered Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages amount requested
Consequences of noncompliance with the court’s order	N/A	N/A	Court warned failure to comply may result in dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(b) or the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction based on various factors)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (district courts may dismiss actions sua sponte for failure to prosecute or comply with orders)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal is appropriate for failure to comply with court orders)