1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 5:24-cv-01522-MEMF-SP 11 SAM BENFORD,

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

IGNACIO A. ARRINCON D/B/A MEXICO

15 TIRES; ISIDRO GUARDADO; and DOES 1 to

16 10,

Defendants. 17

18

19

20 On July 22, 2024, Plaintiff Sam Benford (“Benford”) filed a Complaint against Defendants

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

2 6–7.

3 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

4 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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