Case 5:22-cv-00336-MEMF-E Document Filed 04/13/22 Page1of3 Page ID #:19 2 4 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 5:22-cv-00336-MEMF-PLAx 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 15 JAYDAIR2 HOSPITALITY, LLC, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a Complaint against Defendant 21 | JAYDAIR2 Hospitality, LLC, asserting: (1) a claim for mjunctive relief arising out of an alleged 22 || violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

, et seq.; and (2) a 23 | claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE 24 | §§ 51-53 et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA 25 || claim pursuant to

and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought pursuant to 26 || pendent jurisdiction. /d. at 6-7. 27 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 |

. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

Case 5:22-cv-00336-MEMF-E Document 7 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:20

1 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

2 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

3 and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,

(1997) (emphasis added)

4 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

(1988)).

5 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

6 brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

7 standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant

8 case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the

9 specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff

10 encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency

11 litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL.

12 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

13 In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the

14 Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See

(c).

15 In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages

16 Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to

17 Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the

18 Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by

19 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 5:22-cv-00336-MEMF-E Document 7 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:21

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by May 5, 2022. The failure to

2 timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the

3 Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28

(c).

5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

8

9 Dated: April 13, 2022 ___________________________________

10 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

11 United States District Judge

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3