George Jones v. Billionaire Burgers Inc.

Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:185

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF(PVCx) GEORGE JONES,

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 BILLIONAIRE BURGERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

20 On March 27, 2022, Plaintiff George Jones filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Billionaire Burgers Inc., Tang Pham, and Kathy Pham asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–53 et seq. ECF No. 25. The FAC alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. ¶¶ 9–10.

27 Principles of supplemental jurisdiction are codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:186

1 jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

5 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

13 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

15 In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

27 / / / / / / Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:187

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 20, 2022. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: April 6, 2022 ___________________________________ 10 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 11 United States District Judge