Case 2:22-cv-04301-MEMF-SK Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-04301-MEMF (SKx) 11 MARQUISE BAILEY,

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 CELIA LAUFER DE FELDMAN; and DOES 1 15 TO 10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 On June 23, 2022 Plaintiff Marquise Bailey filed a Complaint against Defendants Celia 24 Laufer De Feldman and Does 1 to 10 asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an 25 alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a 26 claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE 27 §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. 28 CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the California Health 1 Case 2:22-cv-04301-MEMF-SK Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:43

1 and Safety Code, CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 19955 et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence.

2 ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to

3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant[sp]

4 jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.

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

6 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

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

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

21 Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory 23 damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the 24 Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 25 necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 26 provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 27 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by three weeks from the date of 28 this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without 2 Case 2:22-cv-04301-MEMF-SK Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:44

1 further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh

2 Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim,

3 and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

4

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7

8 Dated: July 25, 2022 ___________________________________

9 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

10 United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3