Luna v. E-1 Investments, LLC
Filing
10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Luna to show cause in w riting why the Court should 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause: Luna shall identify the amount of statutory damages Luna seeks to recover. Luna shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from the date of this order. The failu re 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-10762-MEMF-PVC
OMAR LUNA,
v.
14
15
16
E1 INVESTMENTS, 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 December 13, 2024, Plaintiff Omar Luna (“Luna”) filed a Complaint against Defendants
21
E1 Investments, LLC; and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”), asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief
22
arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§
23
12010–12213; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh
24
Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled
25
Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to
26
the Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The
27
Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
28
1
1
and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] 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 Luna 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. Luna shall identify the amount of statutory damages Luna seeks to recover.
6
2. Luna and Luna’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with
7
declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to
8
determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by
9
California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited
10
to:
11
12
a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Luna in the twelve
months preceding the filing of the present claim; and
13
b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Luna’s counsel has
14
represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the
15
filing of the present claim.
16
Luna shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from
17
the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may,
18
without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
19
Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code
20
claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
Dated: January 28, 2025
___________________________________
26
MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG
27
United States District Judge
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?