Raul Uriarte-Limon v. Star Buffet Lynwood Inc, 2:24-cv-10324

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and seeking damages under California’s Unruh Act.
The ADA claim provides federal jurisdiction; the Unruh Act claim is attached as a state law claim for damages.
California law imposes heightened pleading and filing requirements for Unruh Act claims involving construction-related accessibility issues, particularly targeting "high-frequency litigants" (plaintiffs or attorneys filing 10+ such cases in the past 12 months).
Plaintiffs filing in federal court may avoid these California-specific restrictions and fees, which has led to concerns about forum-shopping.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Plaintiff to explain why the federal court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim and to declare the amount of damages and high-frequency litigant status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act	Likely to argue for federal court	Argues California courts intended	Court requires Plaintiff to show cause why
claim, given California's heightened requirements	jurisdiction to recover damages	for limits to apply to such cases	it should not decline jurisdiction
Must Plaintiff disclose damages and high-frequency status?	Likely to comply/argue not "high"	N/A	Plaintiff ordered to provide declarations
Possible dismissal for failing to comply with court order	Plaintiff to respond to avoid this	N/A	Failure to comply may result in dismissal

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (outlines factors for federal court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (district courts can sua sponte dismiss for failure to comply with court orders)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (recognizes court’s power to dismiss claims sua sponte for failure to comply)