1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 5:23-cv-00303-MEMF-AGRx 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, 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 SPARC GROUP LLC dba 15 AROPOSTALE, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a Complaint against Defendant 21 Sparc Group LLC, doing business as Aropostale, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising 22 out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010– 23 12213; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), 24 CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction 25 over the ADA claim pursuant to

and 1343.

. 26 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 27

. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when 28 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in 1 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

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

(1997) (emphasis added)

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

(1988)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant

21 complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and 22 (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 23 425.50(a)(4)(A). 24 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 25 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See

(c). In 26 responding to this Order to Show Cause: 27 1. Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. 28 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 within fourteen (14) days of 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: July 31, 2023 . 20 MAAMI}. EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28