James Rutherford v. Potholder P4 Inc
Filing
13
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF'S STATE LAW CLAIM by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by 10/23/2020. 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 and the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c). Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
SA CV 20-1870-DMG (JEMx)
Date
Title James Rutherford v. Potholder P4 Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable
October 13, 2020
Page
1 of 2
DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
KANE TIEN
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 CLAIM
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 claim. 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, district courts within the state have determined that the interests of fairness and comity,
counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over construction-access claims brought
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.
SA CV 20-1870-DMG (JEMx)
Title James Rutherford v. Potholder P4 Inc., et al.
Date
October 13, 2020
Page
2 of 2
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.”).
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 claim. 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 23, 2020.
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 and
the dismissal of any such claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk KT
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?