Robert Mena v. Angel Auto Spa LLC et al

Filing 10

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFFS STATE LAW CLAIMS by Judge Cormac J. Carney. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/4/2024. (twdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 24-00630-CJC (DFMx)

Date: March 28, 2024

Title: ROBERT MENA v. ANGEL AUTO SPA LLC, et al.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Rolls Royce Paschal
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY
THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS
Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants alleging violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Dkt. 1 [Compl.].) Plaintiff also brings related state-law
claims for negligence and for violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh
Act”), California’s Disabled Persons Act, and the California Health and Safety Code
(collectively the “Related State Law Claims”). Plaintiff contends that this Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over his Related State Law Claims. (Id.)
Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.”
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or
complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional
circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c).
A number of federal district courts across California have declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 24-00630-CJC (DFMx)

Date: March 28, 2024
Page 2

28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d
1025, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because
(1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his
federal claim” and, (2) because “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal
court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements.”). And the Ninth Circuit
has found “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4)
when a plaintiff would be allowed to circumvent and render ineffectual California’s
“procedural requirements aimed at limiting suits by high-frequency litigants” by filing an
Unruh Act claim in federal court and invoking the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). The Court therefore orders
Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over his Related State Law Claims based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in
Arroyo.
Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by April 4, 2024. In his
response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover.
Plaintiff and his counsel shall also include declarations in their responses which provide
all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “highfrequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) &
(2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Related State Law Claims.

lat
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk RRP