Trujillo v. Chaudhary ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 JOSE TRUJILLO, 9 Case No. 1:22-cv-00969-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE v. 11 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION HARBIR CHAUDHARY, individually and dba 12 99 Food Market & Gasoline, et al., 14 DAY DEADLINE 13 Defendants. 14 15 On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff Jose Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against 16 Defendants Harbir Chaudhary and Ved Vati Chaudhary (aka Ved Vati Rana), both individually and 17 doing business as 99 Food Market & Gasoline (“Defendants”), alleging claims under the American 18 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), and California’s 19 Health and Safety Code. (Doc. 1). These claims stem from alleged barriers Plaintiff encountered 20 (such as a lack of accessible parking) while he visited a facility owned, operated, or leased by 21 Defendants—99 Food Market & Gasoline. (See id.) No defendant has appeared in this action, and 22 default has been entered. (Docs. 7, 8.) On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for default 23 judgment against all defendants. (Doc. 11.) 24 Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, the Court will order Plaintiff to 25 show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 26 state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding the 27 district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh Act and ADA 28 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 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’s prior cases from this District reveals that he has filed ten or 11 more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve-month 12 period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. See Jacobsen v. Mims, No. 1:13- 13 CV-00256-SKO-HC, 2013 WL 1284242, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) (“The Court may take 14 judicial notice of court records.”). 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days 16 of service of this order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 17 over Plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to respond may result in a 18 recommendation to dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that 19 dismissal is warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order”); see also Hells 20 Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). An inadequate 21 response may result in the undersigned recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 22 state law claims be declined and that they be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 23 1367(c). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: April 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28