Angel Garcia v. Erik's 4 Vientos No. 2 Corporation et al

Filing 10

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Dolly M. Gee. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by October 4, 2024. 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, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 24-7941-DMG (JCx)

Date

Title Angel Garcia v. Erik’s 4 Vientos No. 2 Corporation et al

Present: The Honorable

September 24, 2024
Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KELLY DAVIS
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS— ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT
SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. sections 1201012213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”),
Cal. Civ. Code sections 51-53. It appears that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence
claims. See 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).
The 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 (1988)).
In 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 § 70616.5.
In recognition of California’s efforts to reduce the abuse of California’s disability access
laws, some district courts within the state have determined that the interests of fairness and comity,
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 24-7941-DMG (JCx)

Title Angel Garcia v. Erik’s 4 Vientos No. 2 Corporation et al

Date

September 24, 2024
Page

2 of 2

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 Act
claim.”); see also Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The district court's
principal justification for declining supplemental jurisdiction was that the distinctive configuration
of California-law rules . . . would be rendered ineffectual if the district court were to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that, for this reason, this case presents ‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of §
1367(c)(4).”).
In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court
should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act,
California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims. 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).
Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by October 4, 2024. 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, California
Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims and the dismissal
of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KD