1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | CAMERON HARRELL, Case No.: 8:24-cv—00644-MEMF-JDE 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO

13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S

14 STATE LAW CLAIMS

CH PARTNERS, LLC; MCDONALD’S

I5 CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff Cameron Harrell filed a Complaint against Defendants CH 21 || Partners, LLC; McDonald’s Corporation; and Does 1 to 10; asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive 22. | relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. 23 | § 12131 et seq.; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh 24 || Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-52, et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled 25 || Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 26 || the Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The 27 || Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 28

1 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” □□□ at 2 | 6-7. 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 pleading 11 || standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant 12 || case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the 13 || specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff 14 | encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency 15 | litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See Cal. Gov’t 16 || Code § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints 17 || alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately 18 || preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation” 19 | and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant 20 | plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing 21 | of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 22 | §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint 23 || is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high-frequency litigant who 24 || isa plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the 25 || high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the 26 || individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason why the 27 || individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A). 28

l In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Harrell to show cause in writing why the Court 2 | should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 3 || Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 | 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause: 5 1. Harrell shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. 6 2. Harrell and Harrell’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause 7 with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court 8 to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by 9 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited 10 to: 11 a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve 12 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and 13 b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff's counsel 14 has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the 15 filing of the present claim. 16 Harrell shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from 17 || the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, 18 || without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 19 | Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code 20 || claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 if ——— 25 Dated: April 16, 2024 26 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 27 United States District Judge 28