Robert Mena v. Ofelia Jauregui
8:24-cv-02451
C.D. Cal.
Nov 19, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Robert Mena filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act [lines="15-19"].
  2. The basis for state-law claims is supplemental jurisdiction [lines="21"].
  3. California has recently implemented heightened pleading requirements for claims under the Unruh Act and established a “high-frequency litigant fee” for plaintiffs with numerous accessibility claims [lines="38-46"].
  4. The court noted that accepting supplemental jurisdiction could allow high-frequency litigants to bypass state-law requirements [lines="61-64"].
  5. Mena has filed more than ten actions involving construction-related accessibility claims in the preceding year, qualifying him as a high-frequency litigant under California law [lines="71-74"].

Issues

  1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mena's state-law claims given his status as a high-frequency litigant [lines="85"].
  2. Whether California's legislative enactments regarding high-frequency litigants influence the court's decision on supplemental jurisdiction [lines="75"].

Holdings

  1. The court ordered Mena to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined due to his high-frequency litigant status [lines="83-85"].
  2. The legislative interests of California raised significant concerns about exercising supplemental jurisdiction in this case [lines="75"].

OPINION

ROBERT MENA v. OFELIA JAUREGUI et al.

No. 8:24-cv-02451-JAK (JDEx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 19, 2024

ORDER RE TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS

Based on a review of the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the following determinations are made:

The Complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the “ADA“), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act“), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, and other provisions of California law. Supplemental jurisdiction is the basis for the state-law claims. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7.

District courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff‘s right.” . “In order to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, a district court should consider . . . at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” (citation omitted).

In 2012, California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act claims. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a). In 2015, 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 a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims. E.g., ; . 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 would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by pursuing the claims in a federal forum, many district courts, including this one, have declined to exercise such jurisdiction. E.g., ; .

A review of the docket in this District shows that, in the one-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which he has advanced construction-related accessibility claims. In a California Superior Court, Plaintiff would be deemed a high-frequency litigant. Therefore, “California‘s recent legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in this case.” .

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or before December 3, 2024. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff shall also present a 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 December 10, 2024. Upon receipt of the response(s), the matter will be taken under submission, and a written order will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2024

John A. Kronstadt

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary