Williams v. Mareth Beauty Salon et al

Filing 10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'SSTATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. Williams shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later th an fourteen days from the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (yl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No.: 2:24-cv-07045-MEMF-JPR

LATANYA WILLIAMS,

v.

14
15
16

MARETH BEAUTY SALON; 2321 1ST ST
LLC; and DOES 1 to 10,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO
EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S
STATE LAW CLAIMS

Defendants.

17
18
19
20

On August 20, 2024, Plaintiff Latanya Williams (“Williams”) filed a Complaint against

21

Defendants Mareth Beauty Salon, 2321 1st St LLC, and Does 1 to 10, asserting: (1) a claim for

22

injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

23

42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

24

(“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California

25

Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief

26

pursuant to the Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No.

27

1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

28
1

1

§§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant jurisdiction.” Id. at

2

¶¶ 6–7.

3

Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

4

28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

5

deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

6

each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

7

and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added)

8

(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

9

California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

10

brought under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

11

standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant

12

case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the

13

specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff

14

encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency

15

litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See Cal. Gov’t

16

Code § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints

17

alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately

18

preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation”

19

and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant

20

plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing

21

of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

22

§§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint

23

is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high-frequency litigant who

24

is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the

25

high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the

26

individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason why the

27

individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A).

28
2

1

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Williams to show cause in writing why the Court

2

should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons

3

Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. §

4

1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause:

5

1. Williams shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.

6

2. Williams and Williams’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show

7

Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the

8

Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by

9

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not

10
11
12

limited to:
a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Williams in the
twelve months preceding the filing of the present claim; and

13

b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Williams’s counsel

14

has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the

15

filing of the present claim.

16

Williams shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days

17

from the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause

18

may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

19

the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety

20

Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated: August 30, 2024

___________________________________

26

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

27

United States District Judge

28
3