1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 2:23-cv-05352-MEMF-AFMx 11 LAMAR MYERS, 12 Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

13 v. COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO

EXERCISE SUPPL EMENTAL

14 JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S BURGER KING COMPANY LLC; and DOES STATE LAW CLAIMS 15 1 through 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On July 5, 2023 Plaintiff Lamar Myers filed a Complaint against Defendant Burger King 21 Company LLC, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 22 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; (2) a claim for damages 23 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, et seq.; 24 (3)a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54, et 25 seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 26 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has 27 jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law 28 claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7. 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 freque ncy 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 | | 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 by fourteen days from the date of 15 || this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without 16 | further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh 17 | Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, 18 | and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 | Dated: July 21, 2023 24 MAAME FFWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28