United States District Court, C.D. California
Adelfo Cerame, Jr.
ABC Garden Grove, LLC et al
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL
Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive
relief arising out of an alleged violation of the federal
Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for damages
pursuant to California's Unruh Act. Accordingly, the
Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C.
2012, in an attempt to deter baseless claims and vexatious
litigation, California adopted heightened pleading
requirements for disability discrimination lawsuits under the
Unruh Act.” Velez v. Il Fornaio (America)
Corp., CV 3:18-1840 CAB (MDD), 2018 WL 6446169, at *6
(S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018). These heightened pleading
requirements apply to actions alleging a
“construction-related accessibility claim, ”
which California law defines as “any civil claim in a
civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation,
including but not limited to, a claim brought under Section
51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged
violation of any construction-related accessibility
standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1).
California imposes additional limitations on
“high-frequency litigants, ” defined as:
A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a
construction-related accessibility violation within the
12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
current complaint alleging a construction-related
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of
“high-frequency litigant” also extends to
attorneys. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
425.55(b)(2). “High frequency litigants” are
subject to a special filing fee and further heightened
pleading requirements. See Cal. Gov. Code §
70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A).
enacting restrictions on the filing of construction-related
accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to
limit the financial burdens California's businesses may
face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act.
Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade
these limits and pursue state law damages in a manner
inconsistent with the state law's requirements.
action over which a district court possesses original
jurisdiction, that court “shall have supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to
claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that
they form part of the same case or controversy under Article
III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists,
however, district courts have discretion to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host
of factors” including “the circumstances of the
particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the
character of the governing state law, and the relationship
between the state and federal claims.” City of
Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156,
Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than
ten (10) days from the date of this Order,
why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. In so
responding, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to:
(1) identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks
to recover; and
(2) provide declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts
necessary for the Court to determine if each is a
to respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal
of the entire action without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)
(stating that dismissal is warranted “[i]f the
plaintiff fails to … comply with … a court
order”); see Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S.
626, 629-33 (1962) (holding that while Rule 41(b) explicitly
authorizes motions to dismiss by defendants, it also permits
the district court to dismiss sua sponte); see
also Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
an inadequate response will result in the Court declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh
Act claim and the dismissal of ...