Case 2:22-cv-01312-MEMF-PLA Document 10 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-01312-MEMF(PLAx) 11 LUZ ZENDEJAS,

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

LIMITLESS COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS,

15 INC., and DOES 1 to 10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20 On February 25, 2022, Plaintiff Luz Zendejas filed a Complaint against Defendants Limitless

21 Commercial Holdings, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of 22 an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; 23 (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. 24 CODE §§ 51–52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, 25 CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the 26 California Unfair Competition Act, CAL. BUS. & PROF CODE §§ 17200 et seq.; and (5) a claim for 27 negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim 28 1 Case 2:22-cv-01312-MEMF-PLA Document 10 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:28

1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to

2 pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Id. ¶¶ 1–3.

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 §§ 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 § 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 § 70616.5.

17 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court

18 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons

19 Act claim, the California Unfair Competition Act claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. §

20 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory

21 damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the 22 Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 23 necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 24 provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 25 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by May 6, 2022. The failure to 26 timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the 27 Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-01312-MEMF-PLA Document 10 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:29

1 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Unfair Competition Act claim, and the negligence claim

2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6

7 Dated: April 21, 2022 ___________________________________

8 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

9 United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3