Case 2:22-cv-00470-MEMF-SK Document 16 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:135

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-00470-MEMF(SKx) 11 JONG JA KIM,

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 VARTY MAZLEMIAN, AS TRUSTEE OF 15 VARTY MAZLEMIAN TRUST; and DOES 1

16 to 10,

Defendants. 17

18

19

20

21 22 23 On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Jong Ja Kim filed a Complaint against Defendant Varty 24 Mazlemian asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 25 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

; (2) a claim for damages 26 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) 27 a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; 28 (4) a claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Act, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq.; 1 ase 2:22-cv-00470-MEMF-SK Document16 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2of3 Page ID #:136

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

and 1343, and that the state law claims are 3 || brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Jd. at §§ 1-2. 4 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 5 ||

. 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,

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

(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 Unfair Competition Act claim, and the negligence claim. See

(c). In 21 | responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages 22 || Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to 23 || Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the 24 | Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by 25 | 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-00470-MEMF-SK Document 16 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:137

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

2 pursuant to

(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