2:24-cv-04455
C.D. Cal.
Jun 13, 2024
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Plaintiff, Barbel Perissa, initially filed suit against the United States Polo Association (USPA) and USPA Properties, Inc. for false pricing practices in December 2023. [lines="62-67"].
  2. Following discovery, it was revealed that USPA and Properties are not the correct defendants as they do not operate the website or retail stores nor set prices for merchandise. [lines="85-89"].
  3. Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add JRA Trademark Company, Ltd. and US Outlet Stores Central Valley, LLC as defendants while dismissing USPA and Properties with their consent. [lines="27-30"].
  4. The motion to amend is unopposed by the current defendants, who granted a recent extension for filing. [lines="30", "60"].
  5. The motion includes a request for a new scheduling order after the new defendants appear. [lines="37-38"].

Issues

  1. Whether the court will grant Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint by adding new defendants and dismissing current defendants. [lines="289"].
  2. Whether Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for amending the scheduling order and the complaint under rules of federal civil procedure. [lines="103-106"].

Holdings

  1. The court denied the motion to amend the complaint at this time, requiring Plaintiff to provide a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of the current defendants. [lines="0-3"].
  2. Plaintiff must establish the relationship between the dismissed defendants and the new ones to justify amending the current case instead of filing a new action. [lines="6-9"].

OPINION

MIRIAM MALDONADO v. SAN BO LAU, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10

Case No.: 2:24-cv-04455-MEMF-JPR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 13, 2024

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF‘S STATE LAW CLAIMS

On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff Miriam Maldonado filed a Complaint against Defendants San Bo Lau, LLC; and Does 1 to 10, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California‘s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act“), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.

Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.‘” (emphasis added) (quoting ).

California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits brought under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff‘s claim, including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See Cal. Gov‘t Code § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high-frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant‘s business; and (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant‘s business.” See id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A).

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Miriam Maldonado to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause:

  1. Maldonado shall identify the amount of statutory damages she seeks to recover.
  2. Maldonado and Maldonado‘s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited to:
    1. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Maldonado in the twelve months preceding the filing of the present claim; and
    2. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Maldonado‘s counsel has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the filing of the present claim.

Maldonado shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2024

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary