Case 2:22-cv-02022-MEMF-JEM Document 11 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-02022-MEMF(JEMx) 11 ANTONIO FERNANDEZ,

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

QUAN FAMILY LIMITED LIABILITY

15 COMPANY,

16 Defendant.

17

18

19

20 On March 27, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez filed a Complaint against Defendant Quan

21 Family Limited Liability Company, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief and equitable nominal 22 damages arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 23 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; and (2) a claim for injunctive relief and damages pursuant to California’s 24 Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint 25 alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 26 and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. 27 Principles of supplemental jurisdiction are codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental 28 jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental 1 Case 2:22-cv-02022-MEMF-JEM Document 11 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:23

1 jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the

2 litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chi. v. Int’l

3 Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.

4 Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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

6 brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

7 standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims, like the one in the instant

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

9 specific barriers encountered, how the plaintiff was deterred, and each date on which the plaintiff

10 encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency

11 litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL.

12 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

13 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the

14 Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

15 In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages

16 Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to

17 Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the

18 Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by

19 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-02022-MEMF-JEM Document 11 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:24

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 20, 2022. The failure to

2 timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the

3 Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28

4 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8

9 Dated: April 6, 2022 ___________________________________

10 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

11 United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3