George Jones v. Billionaire Burgers Inc.

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:185

Case No.: 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF(PVCx)

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S BILLIONAIRE BURGERS, INC., et al., Defendants.

On March 27, 2022, Plaintiff George Jones filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

against Defendants Billionaire Burgers Inc., Tang Pham, and Kathy Pham asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–53 et seq. ECF No. 25. The FAC alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction.” Id. ¶¶ 9–10. Principles of supplemental jurisdiction are codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental 1 Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:186

jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the

litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chi. v. Int’l

Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.

Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant

case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the

specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff

encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency

litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL.

GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the

Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages

Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to

Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the

Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

/ / / / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-00110-MEMF-PVC Document 30 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:187

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 20, 2022. The failure to

timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the

Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Dated: April 6, 2022 ___________________________________

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

United States District Judge