Case 2:23-cv-01144-MEMF-SP Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:23-cv-01144-MEMF (SP) 11 KEVIN COX,

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 MARUYAMA FOOD SYSTEMS INC.; and 15 DOES 1 through 10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20 On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff Kevin Cox filed a Complaint against Defendant Maruyama

21 Food Systems Inc., asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of 22 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182–12183, et seq; (2) a claim for 23 damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, 24 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 25 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY 26 CODE §§ 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this 27 Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the 28 state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7. 1 Case 2:23-cv-01144-MEMF-SP Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:45

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

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

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

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

12 the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A

13 “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

14 claims. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10

15 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period

16 immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related

17 accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-

18 frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately

19 preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.”

20 CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1)

21 whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high- 22 frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related 23 accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant 24 complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and 25 (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 26 425.50(a)(4)(A). 27 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 28 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 2 Case 2:23-cv-01144-MEMF-SP Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:46

1 Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. §

2 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause:

3 1. Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.

4 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause

5 with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court

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

7 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited

8 to:

9 a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve

10 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and

11 b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff’s counsel

12 has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the

13 filing of the present claim.

14 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than fourteen (14) days

15 from the date of this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause

16 may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

17 the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety

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

19

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 22 23 Dated: March 21, 2023 ___________________________________ 24 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 3