Luz Zendejas v. Curandera Ana, 2:24-cv-09840

Luz Zendejas filed a lawsuit against Curandera Ana and others, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws.
The federal court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The court is considering whether to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims per 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), particularly in light of concerns expressed in recent Ninth Circuit precedent.
The plaintiff has been ordered to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised, specifically requesting details about the amount sought in damages under the Unruh Act and whether the plaintiff or her counsel qualify as "high-frequency litigants."
The court warns that a failure to respond by the specified date may result in dismissal of part or all of the action without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should the federal court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and state claims?	Federal court should retain jurisdiction as state and federal claims are related.	Use of federal court may be to evade California's stricter Unruh Act reforms.	Court orders plaintiff to show cause; no final decision yet.
Is there a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over entire case?	ADA claim provides federal question jurisdiction; Unruh claim is supplemental.	Supplemental jurisdiction should be declined to respect state reforms.	Court inquires, requiring further factual showing.
Should plaintiff's status as a "high-frequency litigant" impact jurisdiction?	Not addressed yet; court requests info.	Defendants likely argue for dismissal if plaintiff is high-frequency filer.	Court requests declarations; no ruling yet.
What damages are sought under the Unruh Act?	Plaintiff to specify amount sought in response.	Defendants may argue damages sought are insufficient for federal jurisdiction or are abusive.	Court requests specifics; no holding.

Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims due to comity concerns and efforts to evade state law reforms)
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time)
Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2002) (courts have continuing duty to ensure subject matter jurisdiction)