Opinion
2:22-cv-05125-FLA-E
07-27-2022
LATANYA WILLIAMS v. WAYNE H. JUNG ET AL
Present The Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, U.S. District Judge.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE LAW CLAIM
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and a claim for damages pursuant to the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act Claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff's right, and that district courts can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The supplemental jurisdiction statute codifies these principles. After establishing that supplemental jurisdiction encompasses “other claims” in the same case or controversy as a claim within the district courts' original jurisdiction, § 1367(a), the statute confirms the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction by enumerating the circumstances in which district courts can refuse its exercise:
“(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if -
“(1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law,
“(2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction,
“(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or
“(4) in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c).
Depending on a host of factors, then -- including the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims -- district courts may decline to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. The statute thereby reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, “a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every state of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity”Id. at 173 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)); see lso Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing district ourts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 c)).
In 2012, California adopted a heightened pleading standard for lawsuits brought nder the Unruh Act to combat the influx of baseless claims and vexatious litigation in he disability access litigation sphere. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50. The stricter Heading standard requires a plaintiff bringing construction-access claims1 to file a erified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff's claim, including the pecific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which he plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Id. § 425.50(a). California lso imposed a “high-frequency litigant fee” in 2015 in response to the “special and nique circumstances” presented by certain plaintiffs and law firms filing an outsized umber of Unruh Act Lawsuits. Cal. Gov't Code § 70616.5.
‘“Construction-related accessibility claim' means any civil claim in a civil action with espect to a place of public accommodation, including, but not limited to, a claim rought under [Cal. Civ. Code] Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on n alleged violation of any construction-related accessibility standard, as defined in aragraph (6).” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). ‘“Construction-related accessibility tandard' means a provision, standard, or regulation under state or federal law requiring ompliance with standards for making new construction and existing facilities ccessible to persons with disabilities, including, but not limited to, any provision, tandard, or regulation set forth in Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55 of this code, Section 9955.55 of the Health and Safety Code, the California Building Standards Code (Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations), the federal Americans with Disabilities Act f 1990 (Public Law 101-336; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), and the federal Americans ith Disability Act Accessibility Guidelines (Appendix A to Part 36, of Title 28, of the ode of Federal Regulations).” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(6).
In recognition of California's effort to reduce the abuse of California's disability ccess laws, district courts within the state have determined that the interests of fairness nd comity counsel against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over onstruction-access claims brought under the Unruh Act. See, e.g. Schutza v. uddeback, 262 F.Supp.3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (“[T]he Court finds it would e improper to allow Plaintiff [a high frequency litigant] to use federal court as an nd-around to California's pleading requirements. Therefore, as a matter of comity, and n deference to California's substantial interest in discouraging unverified disability iscrimination claims, the Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's nruh Act Claim.”).
In light of the foregoing, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing hy the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and ny related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to how Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to ecover. Plaintiff and his or her counsel also shall support their responses to the Order o Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts ecessary for the court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency itigant” as provided by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within fourteen (14) ays of this Order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause ay result in the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh ct claim and any related state law claims and dismissing such claim or claims without urther notice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The Court may set a hearing on the S.C. after reviewing the parties' responses, if necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.