Michael Rhambo v. Alexis Smart

United States District Court for the Central District of California

Michael Rhambo v. Alexis Smart

Trial Court Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02597-MEMF-RAO Document 9 Filed 04/21/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-02597-MEMF(RAOx) 11 MICHAEL RHAMBO,

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 ALEXIS SMART; and DOES 1 to 10, 15 Defendants. 16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23 On April 19, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Rhambo filed a Complaint against Defendant Alexis 24 Smart, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans 25 with 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 restitution and injunctive relief pursuant to California’s Unfair Competition Act, CAL. BUS. AND 1 Case 2:22-cv-02597-MEMF-RAO Document 9 Filed 04/21/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:26

1 PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges

2 that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343, and

3 that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.”

Id.

¶¶ 1–2.

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’l 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 CODE § 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 May 12, 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 2 Case 2:22-cv-02597-MEMF-RAO Document 9 Filed 04/21/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:27

1 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Unfair Competition Act 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 21, 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