United States District Court, C.D. California
PRESENT THE HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT
DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE
LAW CLAIM AND DISMISS THE ADA ACTION AS MOOT
Daniel Lopez filed the Complaint in this action for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act (“Unruh Act”) against Defendants Regina
Villegas and Abraha Rivas on July 23, 2019. [Doc. # 1.]
TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
appears that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C.
supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the
understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should
consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of
the litigation, the values of judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity.'” City of
Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156,
173, 118 S.Ct. 523, 534 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350
2012, California adopted a heightened pleading standard for
lawsuits brought under the Unruh Act to combat the influx of
baseless claims and vexatious litigation in the disability
access litigation sphere. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1).
The stricter pleading standard requires a plaintiff bringing
construction-access claims to file a verified complaint
alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff's claim,
including the specific barriers encountered or how the
plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff
encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). California also imposed a
“high-frequency litigant fee” in 2015 in response
to the “special and unique circumstances”
presented by certain plaintiffs and law firms filing an
outsized number of Unruh Act lawsuits. Cal. Gov't Code
recognition of California's efforts to reduce the abuse
of California's disability access laws, district courts
within the state have determined that the interests of
fairness and comity, counsel against exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over construction-access claims brought under
the Unruh Act. See, e.g., Schutza v.
Cuddeback, 262 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017)
(“[T]he Court finds it would be improper to allow
Plaintiff [a high frequency litigant] to use federal court as
an end-around to California's pleading requirements.
Therefore, as a matter of comity, and in deference to
California's substantial interest in discouraging
unverified disability discrimination claims, the Court
declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh
is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the
Court should not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause,
Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages
Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall
also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with
declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all
facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy
the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as
provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections
425.55(b)(1) & (2).
TO SHOW CAUSE RE DEFENDANTS' REMEDIATION
the docket reflects that Defendants Villegas and Rivas have
submitted a notice of remediation of the violations of which
Plaintiff complains. [Doc. # 23.] Plaintiff is therefore also
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should
not dismiss the ADA claim as moot in light of Defendants'
remediation. Failure to submit a satisfactory response to
this OSC shall result in the ...