Robert Cauley v. Jose Muniz

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Robert Cauley v. Jose Muniz

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01996-MEMF-JPR Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-01996-MEMF(JPRx) 11 ROBERT CAULEY,

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 JOSE MUNIZ; and DOES 1 to 10, 15 Defendants. 16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Cauley filed a Complaint against Defendant Jose Muniz 24 asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with 25 Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213

; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to 26 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for 27 damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim 28 for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the, CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §§ 19955 et seq.; 1 ase 2:22-cv-01996-MEMF-JPR Document9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2of3 Page ID#:27

1 | and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction 2 || over the ADA claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343, and that the state law claims are 3 || brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Jd. at §§ 6-7. 4 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 5 ||

28 U.S.C. § 1367

. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when 6 || deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in 7 || each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 8 || and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons,

522 U.S. 156, 173

(1997) (emphasis added) 9 | (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

484 U.S. 343, 350

(1988)). 10 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits 11 | brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIv. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading 12 | standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant 13 || case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff's claim, including the 14 | specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff 15 | encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency 16 | litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL. 17 || Gov’T CobE § 70616.5. 18 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 19 | should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 20 | Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See

28 U.S.C. § 21

| 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory 22 || damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the 23 || Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 24 | necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 25 || provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 26 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 21, 2022. The failure to 27 | timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the 28 || Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California

Case 2:22-cv-01996-MEMF-JPR Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:28

1 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim

2 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367

(c).

3

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6

7 Dated: April 5, 2022 ___________________________________

8 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

9 United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Reference

Status
Unknown