ase 2:22-cv-02243-MEMF-PLA Document9 Filed 04/13/22 Page1of3 Page ID #:26 2 4 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | JUAN VALENCIA, Case No.: 2:22-cv-02243-MEMF-PLAx 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO

13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S

14 STATE LAW CLAIMS 15 GNN Investments, LLC et al, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Valencia filed a Complaint against Defendants GNN 21 | Investments, LLC and Doe Defendants, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an 22 | alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a 23 | claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE 24 | §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIv. 25 || Cove §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH AND 26 || SAFETY CODE §§ 19955 et seg.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges 27 | that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 28 || that the state law claims are brought pursuant to pendent jurisdiction. /d. at {| 6-7.

Case 2:22-cv-02243-MEMF-PLA Document 9 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:27

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 § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

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

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

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

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

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

14 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

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

16 Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled

17 Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28

18 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of

19 statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their

20 responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing

21 all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency 22 litigant” as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-02243-MEMF-PLA Document 9 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:28

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 28, 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, the California

4 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim

5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

6

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9

10 Dated: April 13, 2022 ___________________________________

11 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

12 United States District Judge

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3