Cesar Acevedo v. Tires By Ez Inc., 2:24-cv-10047

Plaintiff Cesar Acevedo filed suit alleging violations based on an incident of disability discrimination at a business, Tires by EZ Inc.
The Complaint alleges a federal ADA claim and several California state law claims (Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health & Safety Code, and negligence).
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims.
California law imposes stricter pleading requirements and potential fees on “high-frequency litigant” plaintiffs for construction-access claims, aiming to curb serial litigation.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Acevedo to justify why the Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, given these concerns.
The Court set a deadline for Acevedo and his counsel to respond with detailed declarations concerning high-frequency litigant status and the statutory damages sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims	State law claims are related to ADA claim and should be heard together	State law claims present distinct issues; heightened California standards apply	Court has not yet ruled, instead orders Acevedo to show cause
Whether Plaintiff qualifies as a "high-frequency litigant" under California law	No explicit argument; must submit detailed declaration	Not detailed; court seeks information	Awaiting Plaintiff’s response to determine status
Adequacy of pleading under Unruh Act heightened standards	Plaintiff contends the complaint is sufficient	Defendant likely argues heightened standards unmet	Court requires factual specificity per California law
Amount and justification for statutory damages	Plaintiff must specify damages sought	Not addressed in order	Court awaits Plaintiff’s declaration

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (discussing factors relevant to supplemental jurisdiction, including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (holding that federal courts should consider various values when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)