Case 2:22-cv-02327-MEMF-PVC Document 11 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-02327-MEMF(PVCx) 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 VICTOR HUGO TORRES PALENCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17

18

19

20 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez filed a Complaint against Defendants Victor

21 Hugo Torres Palencia, Noemi Fuentefria, and Miriam Hernandez, asserting: (1) a claim for damages 22 and injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 23 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; and (2) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 24 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq. ECF No. 1. 25 The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 26 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. 27 ¶¶ 7–8. 28 1 Case 2:22-cv-02327-MEMF-PVC Document 11 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:28

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 Court

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

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

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

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

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

21 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 22 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-02327-MEMF-PVC Document 11 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:29

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by May 6, 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 21, 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