Sam Benford v. Frank's Auto Body & Paint, LLC

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] SAM BENFORD, No. 2:24-cv-09604-JAK (JPRx) [11] Plaintiff, ORDER RE TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 12 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION v. OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS [13] FRANK’S AUTO BODY & PAINT, 14 LLC, et al. 15 Defendants. [16] Based on a review of the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the following determinations are [17] made: [18] The Complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 19 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), [20] Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53 , and other provisions of California law. Supplemental [21] jurisdiction is the basis for the state-law claims. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7. [22] District courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that [23] are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part [24] of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 25 U.S.C. § 1367 (a). This “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine [26] Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). “In order to decide whether to exercise [27] 1 jurisdiction over pendent state law claims, a district court should consider . . . at every 2 stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and 3 comity.” Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 715 (9th Cir. 1990) 4 (citation omitted). 5 In 2012, California imposed heightened pleading requirements for Unruh Act 6 claims. Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52 (a)(1); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(a). In 2015, 7 California also imposed a “high-frequency litigant fee” for plaintiffs and law firms that 8 have brought large numbers of construction-related accessibility claims. Cal. Gov’t Code 9 70616.5. As detailed in previous orders by this Court and other district courts in 10 California, these reforms addressed the small number of plaintiffs and counsel who bring 11 a significant percentage of construction-related accessibility claims. E.g., Whitaker v. 12 RCP Belmont Shore LLC, No. LA CV19-09561 JAK (JEMx), 2020 WL 3800449 , at *613 8 (Mar. 30, 2020); Garibay v. Rodriguez, No. 2:18-cv-09187-PA (AFMx), 2019 WL 14 5204294, at *1-6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2019). These statutes impose special requirements 15 for construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency plaintiffs 16 pursuant to the Unruh Act. Because accepting supplemental jurisdiction over such claims 17 would permit high-frequency plaintiffs to side-step those state-law requirements by 18 pursuing the claims in a federal forum, many district courts, including this one, have 19 declined to exercise such jurisdiction. E.g., Whitaker, 2020 WL 3800449 , at *6-8; 20 Garibay, 2019 WL 5204294 , at *1-6. 21 A review of the docket in this District shows that, in the one-year period preceding 22 the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiff has filed more than ten actions in which he has 23 advanced construction-related accessibility claims. In a California Superior Court, 24 Plaintiff would be deemed a high-frequency litigant. Therefore, “California’s recent 25 legislative enactments confirm that the state has a substantial interest in this case.” Perri 26 v. Thrifty Payless, No. 2:19-CV-07829-CJC (SKx), 2019 WL 7882068 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. 27 Oct. 8, 2019). 1 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 2 || Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 3 Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to exceed ten pages, on or 4 || before December 2, 2024. In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff shall also 6 || present a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, providing the evidence necessary 7 || for the Court to determine if Plaintiff meets the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” 8 || as defined in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.50(b)(1) & (2). Failure to file a timely response 9 | 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 11 || U.S.C. § 1367(c). Defendant may also file a response to this Order to Show Cause, not to 12 || exceed ten pages, on or before December 9, 2024. Upon receipt of the response(s), the 13 matter will be taken under submission, and a written order will issue. [15] 16 | ITISSO ORDERED. 17 NW 18 || Dated: November 19, 2024 C} fre 19 John A. Kronstadt United States District Judge