Luis Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company
Filing
16
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Josephine L. Staton: Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. The Court hereby CONTINUES the Scheduling Conference from 10/11/2019 to 12/13/2019 at 10:30 AM. (jp)
__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 19-01300-JLS (DFM)
Title: Luis Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company
Date: October 9, 2019
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Not Present
N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of
an alleged violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim for
damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Act. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff
to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
“In 2012, in an attempt to deter baseless claims and vexatious litigation, [the]
California [legislature] adopted heightened pleading requirements for disability
discrimination lawsuits under the Unruh Act.” Velez v. Il Fornaio (America) Corp., CV
3:18-1840 CAB (MDD), 2018 WL 6446169, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (citations
omitted). These heightened pleading requirements apply to actions alleging a
“construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any civil
claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not
limited to, a claim brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on
an alleged violation of any construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code
§ 55.52(a)(1).
Moreover, California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,”
defined as:
A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a constructionrelated accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 19-01300-JLS (DFM)
Title: Luis Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company
Date: October 9, 2019
preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related
accessibility violation.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigant” also
extends to attorneys. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). “High frequency
litigants” are subject to a special filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements.
See Cal. Gov. Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A).
By enacting restrictions on the filing of construction-related accessibility claims,
California has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens California’s businesses
may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Plaintiffs who file these
actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue state law damages in a manner
inconsistent with the state law’s requirements.
In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court
“shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in
the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may
be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the circumstances of the
particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law,
and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll.
of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than
ten (10) days from the date of this Order, why the Court should not decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. In so responding, Plaintiff is
further ORDERED to:
(1) identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover; and
(2) provide declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, signed under
penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if
each is a “high-frequency litigant.”
Failure to timely or adequately respond may, without further warning, result in
dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2
__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 19-01300-JLS (DFM)
Title: Luis Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company
Date: October 9, 2019
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
The Court hereby CONTINUES the Scheduling Conference from October 11,
2019 to December 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer: tg
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
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?