1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KORTTNEY ELLIOTT, No. 2:23-cv-05065-JAK (JPRx)

13 Vv. OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS

14 GREAT NEW WORLD EQUITY, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19

1 Based on a review of the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the following determinations are 2 || made: 3 The Complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 4 | U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), 5 ||

, and other provisions of California law. Dkt. 1 9] 6-7. 6 || Supplemental jurisdiction is the basis for the state-law claims.

¥ 7. 7 District courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that 8 | are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part 9 || of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 10 || U.S.C. § 1367(a). This “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right.” United Mine 11 Workers v. Gibbs,

(1966). “In order to decide whether to exercise 12 || jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, a district court should consider . . . at every 13 || stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 14 | comity.” Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs.,

, 715 (9th Cir. 1990) 15 || (citation omitted). 16 In 2012, California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act 17 | claims.

(a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a). In 2015, 18 || California also imposed a “high-frequency litigant fee” for plaintiffs and law firms that | have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. Cal. Gov’t Code || 70616.5. As detailed in previous orders by this Court and other district courts in || California, these reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring || asignificant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims. E.g., Whitaker v. || RCP Belmont Shore LLC, No. LA CV19-09561 JAK (JEMx),

, at *6- || 8 (Mar. 30, 2020); Garibay v. Rodriguez, No. 2:18-cv-09187-PA (AFMx), 2019 WL || 5204294, at *1-6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019). These statutes impose special requirements || for construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency plaintiffs || pursuant to the Unruh Act. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims

1 || would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by 2 || pursuing the claims in a federal forum, many district courts, including this one, have 3 declined to exercise such jurisdiction. E.g., Whitaker,

, at *6-8; 4 || Garibay,

, at *1-6. 5 A review of the docket in this District shows that, in the one-year period preceding 6 || the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which she has 7 || advanced construction-related accessibility claims. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel, Jason 8 || Kim, Jason Yoon, and Kevin Hong of the So Cal Equal Access Group, has represented 9 | several individuals who appear to be high-frequency plaintiffs in construction-related accessibility actions. In a California Superior Court, Plaintiff would be deemed a high- 11 |) frequency litigant. If so, “California’s recent legislative enactments confirm that the state 12 || [would have] a substantial interest in this case.” Perri v. Thrifty Payless, No. 2:19-CV- 13 || 07829-CJC (SKx),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2019). 14 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 15 || Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 16 || Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or 17 || before July 24, 2023. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify 18 || the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff shall also present a 19 |) declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, providing the evidence necessary for the || Court to determine if Plaintiff meets the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as || defined in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to file a timely response to || this Order to Show Cause may result in the dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, pursuant to 28 | U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendant may also file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to || exceed ten pages, on or before July 31, 2023. Upon receipt of the response(s), the matter || will be taken under submission, and a written order will issue.

1 2 | ITTSSO ORDERED. 3 C) Wn hr 4 || Dated: July 5, 2023 5 John A. Kronstadt 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19