UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-01389-CJC-JC Date: February 12, 2020

Title: ORLANDO GARCIA v. KARAPET DILBIYAN, et al.

PRESENT:

HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabriela Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT CLAIM

On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed this action against Defendants Karapet Dilbiyan and Mary Akopyan, who allegedly own an A&K Home Mart store in Glendale, California, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). (Dkt. 1 [Complaint].) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff contends that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over his ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. (Id. ¶¶ 5–6.)

Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966). District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.”

(c). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-01389-CJC-JC Date: February 12, 2020 Page 2

Several federal district courts across California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing

(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback,

, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because (1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his federal claim,” and (2) “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements”); Theroux v. Oceanside Motel-9, LP,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) (similar); Spikes v. All Pro Auto Repair, Inc.,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2019) (dismissing for these reasons various state law claims including claims for violation of the Unruh Act, California Health and Safety Code Section 19955, negligence per se, and negligence). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for similar reasons.

Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by February 24, 2020. In his response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also include declarations in their responses which provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

cb

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk GGA