Marquise Bailey v. IHOP Restaurants, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS UNRUH ACT CLAIM AND RELATED STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Cormac J. Carney. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by August 18, 2022. In his response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also include declarations in their response which provide 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 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act claim and Related State Law Claims. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. LACV 22-04817-CJC(PDx)

Date: July 29, 2022

Title: MARQUISE BAILEY V. IHOP RESTAURANTS, LLC D/B/A IHOP 0743, ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rolls Royce Paschal
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT CLAIM AND RELATED
STATE LAW CLAIMS
On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants, alleging violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act
(“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff also brings related
state law claims for negligence, violation of California’s Disabled Persons Act, and
violation of California’s Health and Safety Code (the “Related State Law Claims”).
Plaintiff contends that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim
and Related State Law Claims. (Id.)
Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.”
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or
complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional
circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. LACV 22-04817-CJC(PDx)

Date: July 29, 2022
Page 2

A number of federal district courts across California have declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing
28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d
1025, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because
(1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his
federal claim” and, (2) because “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal
court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements.”). And the Ninth Circuit
has found “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4)
when a plaintiff would be allowed to circumvent and render ineffectual California’s
“procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants” by filing an
Unruh Act claim in federal court and invoking the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court therefore orders
Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and Related State Law Claims based on the Ninth
Circuit’s reasoning in Arroyo.
Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by August 18, 2022. In
his response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover.
Plaintiff and his counsel shall also include declarations in their response which provide
all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “highfrequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) &
(2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and Related State Law Claims.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk RRP