Mario Mendoza v. John Au, 2:25-cv-04431

Mario Mendoza, who has cerebral palsy, alleges Defendants did not provide adequate parking facilities, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act.
The Court has original jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
California amended the Unruh Act to curb abusive litigation, particularly from high-frequency litigants seeking statutory damages for construction-related accessibility issues.
There has been a significant increase in ADA cases filed in federal court to sidestep these state reforms.
The Ninth Circuit has advised caution in retaining Unruh Act supplemental jurisdiction to respect state reforms and comity.
The Court has not yet addressed the merits and is considering declining jurisdiction over the Unruh claim at this early stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim	Mendoza argues both claims are closely related and should be tried together	Defendants likely argue that state law claims predominate or should be heard in state court	The Court orders Plaintiff to show why Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice
Impact of California’s Unruh Act reforms and high-frequency litigant provisions	Mendoza may claim reforms do not preclude federal adjudication	Defendants cite risk of undermining California’s reforms through federal court filings	The Court recognizes exceptional circumstances under § 1367(c)(4) to potentially decline jurisdiction
Timing of supplemental jurisdiction decision	N/A	N/A	Distinguished from Arroyo since decision is made early, allowing for comity preservation
Requirements for retaining Unruh Act claim	Mendoza must demonstrate damages sought and litigant status	Defendants would argue plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant and claim should be dismissed	Plaintiff ordered to respond with specific declarations or claim will be dismissed without prejudice

City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (district courts have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (federal retention of ADA-based Unruh Act claims can thwart California’s legislative reforms and justify declining supplemental jurisdiction)