Miguel Soto v. Francisco Ramirez ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. SACV 20-11057-CJC (MAAx) Date: December 8, 2020 Title: MIGUEL SOTO V. FRANCISCO RAMIREZ, ET AL. PRESENT: HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Cheryl Wynn N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present None Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S UNRUH ACT CLAIM AND RELATED STATE LAW CLAIMS On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Miguel Soto filed this action against Defendants, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), as well as state law claims for violation of California’s Disabled Persons Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and negligence. (Dkt. 1 [Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.”].) Plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction over his ADA claim based on the existence of a federal question and jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and other state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction. (Id. at 2.) Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 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). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 20-11057-CJC-MAA Date: December 7, 2020 Page 2 A number of federal district courts across California have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought alongside ADA claims, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(c)(2) & (c)(4). See, e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because (1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his federal claim” and, (2) because “it would be improper to allow Plaintiff to use federal court as an end-around to California’s pleading requirements.”). The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim and other state law claims for similar reasons. Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by December 14, 2020. In his response, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also include declarations in their responses which provide all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Failure to respond to this Order may result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim and related state law claims. gl MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk CW