Jamie Torres v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-11228
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:24-cv-11228-MEMF-AS 11 JAMIE TORRES,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S 14 STATE LAW CLAIMS ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and 15 DOES 1-10,

16 Defendants.

20 On December 31, 2024, Jamie Torres filed a Comp laint against Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, Inc. 21 and Does 1-10, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 22 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; and (2) a claim for damages 23 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq. ECF No. 24 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “[p]ursuant to supplemental 26 jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 7–8. 27 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 1 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

2 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

3 and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added)

4 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

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

6 brought under the Unruh Act. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading

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

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

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

10 encountered each barrier or was deterred. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency

11 litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See Cal. Gov’t

12 Code § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints

13 alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately

14 preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation”

15 and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-frequency litigant

16 plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing

17 of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

18 §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint

19 is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high-frequency litigant who

20 is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the

21 high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the 22 individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason why the 23 individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A). 24 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Torres to show cause in writing why the Court 25 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In 26 responding to this Order to Show Cause: 27 1. Torres shall identify the amount of statutory damages Torres seeks to recover. 28 l 2. Torres and Torres’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause 2 with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court 3 to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by 4 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited 5 to: 6 a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Torres in the twelve 7 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and 8 b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Torres’s counsel has 9 represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the 10 filing of the present claim. 11 Torres shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days from 12 || the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, 13 || without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 14 | Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 f= 19 | Dated: January 30, 2025 20 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28