1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:23-01246-MEMF-RAO 11 MARIA SANTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL,

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 TOBI TOBIN, A CORPORATION, 15 Defendants. 16

17

18

19

20 On February 18, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Santos filed a Complaint against Defendant Tobi

21 Tobin, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans 22 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213 and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to 23 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, et seq.. ECF No. 1. 24 The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to

1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.”

26 at ¶ 5. 27 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28

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

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

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

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

10 the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A

11 “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

12 claims. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10

13 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period

14 immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related

15 accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-

16 frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately

17 preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.”

18 CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1)

19 whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high-

20 frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related

21 accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant 22 complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and 23 (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 24 425.50(a)(4)(A). 25 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 26 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See

(c). In 27 responding to this Order to Show Cause: 28 1. Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. 1 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause

2 with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court

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

4 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited

5 to:

6 a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve

7 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and

8 b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff’s counsel

9 has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the

10 filing of the present claim.

11 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by fourteen (14) days from the

12 date of this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may,

13 without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the

14 Unruh Act claim pursuant to

(c).

15

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

18

19 Dated: March 27, 2023 ___________________________________

20 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28