Jeremy Holland v. Jesse J. Espinoza, d/b/a Juniors Test Only; and Does 1 to 10

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-08901
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:25-cv-08901-MEMF-RAO 11 JEREMY HOLLAND,

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 JESSE J. ESIPINOZA, d/b/a JUNIORS TEST 15 ONLY; and DOES 1 to 10,

16 Defendants.

20 On July 27, 2025, Plaintiff Jeremy Holland (“Holland”) filed a Complaint against Defendant

21 Jesse J. Espinoza, d/b/a Juniors Test Only (“JTO”), asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising 22 out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010– 23 12213; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), 24 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction 25 over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Id. ¶ 3. 26 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 27 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when 28 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in 1 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) whether the complaint

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

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

20 high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the

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