Yeong Lee v. Nina Nguyen, 8:21-cv-00654

Plaintiff filed a federal action asserting an ADA-based claim for injunctive relief and state-law claims for damages under California’s Unruh Act and other state laws.
The court sua sponte ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The order explains California’s 2012 heightened pleading rules for "construction-related accessibility" claims and special rules for "high-frequency litigants" (plaintiffs or attorneys who filed ≥10 such complaints in the prior 12 months).
The court expressed concern that plaintiffs in federal court may evade California’s statutory limits on damages, filing fees, and pleading requirements intended to curb serial disability litigation.
The court directed Plaintiff to (1) identify the amount of statutory damages sought and (2) file declarations under penalty of perjury from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel supplying all facts necessary to determine whether either is a "high-frequency litigant."
The order warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) or, alternatively, the court declining supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act and other state-law claims	State claims arise from the same case or controversy as ADA claim and should be litigated in federal court	Allowing state damages in federal court circumvents California limits and burdens defendants; court should decline jurisdiction	Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 10 days and to provide specified disclosures; no final merits ruling yet — noncompliance may lead to dismissal or declination
Whether Plaintiff or counsel are “high-frequency litigants” under California law	Plaintiff will contest high-frequency status if asserted	If high-frequency litigant, special fees and heightened pleading rules apply	Court required sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel with all facts necessary to determine high-frequency status
Amount of statutory damages sought	Plaintiff must state the amount sought so the court can evaluate proportionality and the impact of state limits	Defendant benefits from enforcement of California’s statutory limits on damages	Court ordered Plaintiff to identify statutory damages amount; inadequate response may produce dismissal or refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (discusses factors a district court may consider when declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (authorizes dismissal for failure to prosecute and recognizes sua sponte dismissal)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (Ninth Circuit on dismissal for failure to comply with court orders)