Cuevas v. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01546
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA CUEVAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-01546-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 13 v. JURISDICTION 14 VALLARTA FOOD ENTERPRISES, Deadline: January 3, 2025 INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Cuevas initiated this action against Defendants 18 Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc. and Vallarta Properties, LLC (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) The 19 complaint asserts claims for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 20 (“ADA”), a claim for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh 21 Act”), and related state law causes of action. (Id.). 22 Based upon the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Vo v. Choi, this Court will order Plaintiff to 23 show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 24 Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) 25 (holding the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh 26 Act and ADA case). 27 In the Unruh Act, a state law cause of action expands the remedies available in a private 28 action. California, in response to the resulting substantial volume of claims asserted under the 1 Unruh Act and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain 2 monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure 3 accessibility to others, enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. 4 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements apply to 5 actions alleging a “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any 6 civil claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not 7 limited to, a claim brought under Section 51[ ], based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of 8 any construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). 9 Moreover, California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” defined 10 as:

11 A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month 12 period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation. 13 14 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). Such “high-frequency litigants” are subject to a special 15 filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170. See Cal. Gov. 16 Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing of 17 construction-related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the financial 18 burdens California’s businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. 19 See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212. The Court of Appeals has also expressed “concerns about 20 comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural 21 requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these 22 limits and pursue state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements. 23 See generally, Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211–12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72. 24 In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court “shall 25 have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 26 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 27 III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction 28 1 | exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 2 | 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” 3 | including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the 4 | character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” 5 | City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). 6 According to the undersigned’s review of filings with this Court and with the U.S. District 7 | Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiff Cuevas has filed more than 10 cases 8 || asserting ADA and Unruh Act claims in these two districts within the previous three months. 9 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 10 1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than January 3, 2025, 11 || why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Unruh Act 12 | claim; 13 2. In responding to the show cause order, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to: 14 a. identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover; and 15 b. submit declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel, signed under penalty 16 of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if each is a 17 “high-frequency litigant;” 18 3. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to respond may result in a recommendation to 19 | dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is 20 | warranted “[iJf the plaintiff fails to ... comply with ... a court order”); see Hells Canyon Pres. 21 Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); and 22 4. Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court recommending that 23 || supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh claim 24 | be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367(c). 2) | IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | } ) Bo Dated: _ December 19, 2024 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28