1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 8:24-cv-01603-MEMF-KES 11 ROBERT MENA,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO

13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S

14 STATE LAW CLAIMS LAGUNA SELF STORAGE, LLC; and DOES 15 1 to 10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20 On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff Robert Mena (“Mena”) filed a Complaint against Defendant

21 Laguna Self Storage, LLC, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged 22 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; (2) a claim 23 for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51– 24 52, et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code 25 § 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Cal. Health & Safety Code 26 § 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court 27 has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law 28 claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7. 1 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

2 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

3 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

4 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

5 and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added)

6 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

7 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

8 brought under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sections 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter

9 pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the

10 instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim,

11 including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which

12 the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 425.50(a). A

13 “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

14 claims. See Cal. Gov’t Code Section 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has

15 filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-

16 month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-

17 related accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or

18 more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period

19 immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related

20 accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants

21 are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency 22 litigant; (2) in the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints 23 alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 24 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area 25 of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s 26 business.” See id. Section 425.50(a)(4)(A). 27 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Mena to show cause in writing why the Court 28 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 1 ]| Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 | 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause: 3 1. Mena shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. 4 2. Mena and Mena’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with 5 declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to 6 determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by 7 California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not 8 limited to: 9 a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve 10 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and 11] b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff's counsel 12 has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the 13 filing of the present claim. 14 Mena shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from 15 || the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, 16 | without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 17 | Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code 18 | claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ce 22 - 23 Dated: August 13, 2024 24 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28