Carmen John Perri v. Phyllis G. Apple

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 19, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-06679
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARMEN JOHN PERRI, an individual, Case No. 2:20-cv-06679-JWH-SKx

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER UNRUH 14 PHYLLIS G. APPLE, an individual; ACT CLAIM DONALD I. GORHAM, an individual; 15 CHARLES J. GORHAM, an individual; and 16 DOES 1-10, inclusive,

17 Defendants.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief 2 arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the 3 “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), and a claim for damages pursuant to 4 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51.1 It 5 appears that this Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 6 § 1367, over the Unruh Act claim. 7 Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, district courts have discretion to 8 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The 9 Supreme Court has described this statute as a “codification” of the principles of 10 “‘economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” that underlie the Supreme 11 Court’s earlier jurisprudence concerning pendent jurisdiction. City of Chicago v. 12 Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon 13 Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988)); see also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 14 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). “[A] federal court should consider and weigh in each 15 case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, 16 convenience, fairness, and comity in order to decide whether to exercise 17 jurisdiction over a case brought in that court involving pendent state-law 18 claims.” Carnegie-Mellon, 484 U.S. at 350. 19 California has enacted legislation to curtail claims such as those asserted 20 in this case when they are filed by high frequency litigants. See 21 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). A number of California federal 22 district courts in cases similar to the present one have declined to exercise 23 supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1367(c)(4). In view of that background, the Court orders Plaintiff to show 25 cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 26 the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 27 1 In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff is directed to identify 2|| the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and 3|| Plaintiffs counsel shall also support their responses to this Order to Show 4|| Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 5|| necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “‘high- 6|| frequency litigant” as provided by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 7 Plaintiff shall file a response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than 14 days after the date of this Order. Failure to respond to this Order to Show 9|| Cause may, without further warning, result in the Court’s dismissal of the entire 10 || action without prejudice or in the Court declining to exercise supplemental 11 || jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 12|| 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | YW □□ yf 15|| Dated: January 19, 2021 ‘ 16 GRITED: STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28