Miguel Hernandez v. Burbank Fireplace and BBQ, Inc.
2:25-cv-03578
C.D. Cal.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Miguel Hernandez filed suit against Burbank Fireplace & BBQ, Inc., 8900 Lankershim, LLC, and Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and several California state statutes.
- The complaint alleges federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim, with related state law claims purportedly under supplemental jurisdiction.
- California imposes heightened pleading and fee requirements for “high-frequency litigants” under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and related statutes, relevant to plaintiffs who frequently file accessibility lawsuits.
- The court is considering whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- Hernandez was ordered to show cause and provide evidence regarding his and his counsel's litigation history and status as “high-frequency litigants.”
- Failure to respond could result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | State law claims are related to the federal ADA claim; court should retain them | State law claims do not merit federal court attention given state policies | Court requires further information; no ruling yet (order to show cause issued) |
| Applicability of high-frequency litigant requirements | Hernandez may not qualify or requirements are satisfied | Plaintiff and/or counsel may be high-frequency litigants; stricter pleading applies | Court orders declarations to determine status; must comply with heightened standards |
| Sufficiency of complaint under California law | Complaint is sufficient under federal rules | California law requires additional verified facts for construction-access claims | Court orders compliance with California’s heightened requirements |
| Statutory damages sought by plaintiff | Hernandez may claim damages under state law | Could be excessive; federal court may not be appropriate forum | Plaintiff ordered to specify damages |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (Supreme Court) (sets forth factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court) (articulates discretionary factors for supplemental jurisdiction)