Michael Harris v. Doug Ruff Corporation et al

Filing 10

ORDER RE TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS by Judge John A. Kronstadt. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or before March 17, 2025. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff see ks to recover. Plaintiff shall also present a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, providing the evidence necessary for the Court to determine if Plaintiff meets the definition of a "high-frequency litigant" as defined in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendant may also file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or before March 24, 2025. (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
12
13
14
15

MICHAEL HARRIS,

No. 2:25-cv-01506-JAK (PVCx)
ORDER RE TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff,
v.
DOUG RUFF CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Based on a review of the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the following determinations are

1
2

made:

3

The Complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

4

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal.

5

Civ. Code §§ 51–55, and other provisions of California law. Supplemental jurisdiction is

6

the basis for the state-law claims. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7.

7

District courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that

8

are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part

9

of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28

10

U.S.C. § 1367(a). This “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine

11

Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). “In order to decide whether to exercise

12

jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, a district court should consider . . . at every

13

stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and

14

comity.” Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 715 (9th Cir. 1990)

15

(citation omitted).

16

In 2012, California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act

17

claims. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a). In 2015,

18

California also imposed a “high-frequency litigant fee” for plaintiffs and law firms that

19

have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. Cal. Gov’t Code

20

70616.5. As detailed in previous orders by this Court and other district courts in

21

California, these reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring

22

a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims. E.g., Whitaker v.

23

RCP Belmont Shore LLC, No. LA CV19-09561 JAK (JEMx), 2020 WL 3800449, at *6–

24

8 (Mar. 30, 2020); Garibay v. Rodriguez, No. 2:18-cv-09187-PA (AFMx), 2019 WL

25

5204294, at *1–6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019). These statutes impose special requirements

26

for construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency plaintiffs

27

pursuant to the Unruh Act. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims

28

2

1

would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by

2

pursuing the claims in a federal forum, many district courts, including this one, have

3

declined to exercise such jurisdiction. E.g., Whitaker, 2020 WL 3800449, at *6–8;

4

Garibay, 2019 WL 5204294, at *1–6.

5

A review of the docket in this District shows that, in the one-year period preceding

6

the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which he has

7

advanced construction-related accessibility claims. In a California Superior Court,

8

Plaintiff would be deemed a high-frequency litigant. Therefore, “California’s recent

9

legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in this case.” Perri

10

v. Thrifty Payless, No. 2:19-CV-07829-CJC (SKx), 2019 WL 7882068, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

11

Oct. 8, 2019).

12

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the

13

Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

14

Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or

15

before March 17, 2025. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall

16

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

17

present a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, providing the evidence necessary

18

for the Court to determine if Plaintiff meets the definition of a “high-frequency litigant”

19

as defined in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to file a timely response

20

to this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of the state-law claims without

21

prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendant may also file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to

23

exceed ten pages, on or before March 24, 2025.

24
25
26
27
28

3

1
2

Upon receipt of the response(s), the matter will be taken under submission, and a
written order will issue.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: March 5, 2025

____________________

8

John A. Kronstadt

9

United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4