Gastelum v. TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01230-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. JURISDICTION 14 TC HERITAGE INN 2 OF Deadline: June 20, 2023 BAKERSFIELD LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On August 13, 2021, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 18 against TC Heritage Inn 2 of Bakersfield LLC. (Doc. 1.) On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the 19 operative, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 15). The FAC asserts claims for injunctive 20 relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), and a claim for statutory 21 damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California Civil Code §§ 51- 22 53. (Id.). A case management order was entered on April 19, 2023, and nonexpert discovery is 23 scheduled to proceed for approximately eight more months. (Doc. 32). 24 Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, this Court will order Plaintiff 25 to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 26 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) 27 (holding the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh 28 Act and ADA case). 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 3 Unruh Act and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain 4 monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure 5 accessibility to others, enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. 6 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements apply to 7 actions alleging a “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any 8 civil claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not 9 limited to, a claim brought under Section 51[ ], based wholly or in part on an alleged 10 violation of any construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). 11 Moreover, California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” defined 12 as: 13 A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing 14 of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation. 15 16 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). Such “high-frequency litigants” are subject to a special 17 filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170. See Cal. Gov. 18 Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing of 19 construction-related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the financial 20 burdens California’s businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. 21 See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212. The Ninth Circuit has also expressed “concerns about 22 comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural 23 requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these 24 limits and pursue state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements. 25 See generally, Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211–12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72. 26 In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court “shall 27 have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 28 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 1 III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction 2 exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” 4 including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the 5 character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” 6 City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). 7 According to the filings with this Court, Plaintiff Gastelum has filed at least 11 cases 8 asserting ADA and Unruh Act claims in the Eastern District alone within the 12-month period 9 from May 2022 to May 2023, and more than 25 cases in the last two years. Indeed, at least one 10 Eastern District court has indicated that Plaintiff appears to be a high-frequency litigant. See 11 Gastelum v. Cotton On USA, Inc., 1:22-cv-01194-JLT-SAB, Doc. 11 at p. 4. 12 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than June 20, 2023, why 14 the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act 15 claim; 16 2. In responding to the show cause order, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to: 17 a. identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover; and 18 b. submit a declaration from Plaintiff, signed under penalty of perjury, providing 19 all facts necessary for the Court to determine if he is a “high-frequency 20 litigant;” 21 3. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to respond may result in a recommendation to 22 dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is 23 warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to … comply with … a court order”); see also Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); and 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 4. Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court recommending that 2 | supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh claim 3 | be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 4 | IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _May 31, 2023 | Word bo 6 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