Gilbert v. Ramos Diaz Enterprises, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DARREN GILBERT, 9 Case No. 1:22-cv-01397-ADA-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE v. 11 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION RAMOS DIAZ ENTERPRISES dba Guayabitos 12 Restaurant, et al., 14 DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendants. 14 15 On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff Darren Gilbert (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against 16 Defendants Ramos Diaz Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Guayabitos Restaurant, and Godavri 17 Properties, LLC (“Defendants”), alleging claims under the American with Disabilities Act 18 (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and California’s Health and Safety 19 Code. (Doc. 1). These claims stem from alleged barriers Plaintiff encountered (such as a lack of 20 accessible parking) while he visited a facility owned, operated, or leased by Defendants— 21 Guayabitos Restaurant. (See id.) No defendant has appeared in this action, and default has been 22 entered. (Docs. 8, 9.) 23 Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, the Court will order Plaintiff to 24 show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 25 state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding the 26 district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh Act and ADA 27 case). 28 1 In the Unruh Act, a state law cause of action expands the remedies available in a private 2 action. California, in response to the resulting substantial volume of claims asserted under the Unruh 3 Act and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain monetary relief 4 for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure accessibility to others, 5 enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211– 6 12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements apply to actions alleging a 7 “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any civil claim in a civil 8 action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not limited to, a claim brought 9 under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any construction- 10 related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). The requirements apply to claims 11 brought under the Unruh Act as well as to related claims under the California Health & Safety Code. 12 See Gilbert v. Singh, No. 1:21cv1338-AWI-HBK, 2023 WL 2239335, *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023). 13 California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” defined as: 14 A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the 15 filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation. 16 17 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigant” also extends to 18 attorneys. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a 19 special filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. See Cal. Gov. Code § 70616.5; Cal. 20 Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing of construction-related 21 accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens California’s 22 businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act and the California Health 23 & Safety Code . See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, *2. The Ninth 24 Circuit has also expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to 25 circumvent “California’s procedural requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171. Plaintiffs who file these 26 actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue state law damages in a manner inconsistent 27 with the state law’s requirements. See generally, Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211–12; Vo v, 49 F.4th at 28 1171–72. 1 In an action in which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court “shall have 2 supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such 3 original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the 4 United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, 5 however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” including “the 7 circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character of the governing 8 state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. 9 of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). 10 Here, a review of Plaintiff Darren Gilbert’s prior cases from this District reveals that he has 11 filed ten or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve- 12 month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. Plaintiff also filed a 13 declaration in another case on January 13, 2023, acknowledging that he would be considered a high- 14 frequency litigant under California law. See Gilbert v. Bonfare Markets, Inc., 1:22-cv-00605-AWI- 15 BAM (Doc. 28-1, p. 2, Gilbert Declaration: “I have filed more than 10 complaints alleging a 16 construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the 17 filing of the complaint in this action.”). See also id. (Doc. 28, p. 2, Gilbert response to order to show 18 cause: “Plaintiff acknowledges that he would be considered a high-frequency litigant under 19 California law as he filed more than ten construction-related accessibility claims in the twelve 20 months preceding the filing of the instant action.”); Jacobsen v. Mims, No. 1:13-CV-00256-SKO- 21 HC, 2013 WL 1284242, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) (“The Court may take judicial notice of 22 court records.”). 23 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days 24 of service of this order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 25 over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to respond may result in a 26 recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that 27 dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order”); see also Hells 28 Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). An inadequate 1 response may result in the undersigned recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 2 state law claims be declined and that they be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1367(c). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: May 30, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28