Jesus Garcia v. Mario Danessi

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:25-cv-03067-MEMF-KES 10 JESUS GARCIA,

11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 12 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S 13 STATE LAW CLAIMS MARIO DANESSI D/B/A 14 ANTICUCHERIA PEROANA; CRISTINA CHAVEZ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE 15 CRISTINA CHAVEZ 2000 TRUST;

and DOES 1 to 10, 16 Defendants. 17

19 On April 8, 2025, Jesus Garcia filed a Complaint against Mario Danessi D/B/A Anticucheria 20 Peroana; Cristina Chavez, as trustee of the Cristina Chave z 2000 Trust; and Does 1 to 10 21 (“Defendants”), 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. §§ 12010–12213; (2) a claim for damages 23 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq.; (3) 24 a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.; 25 (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief based on California Health and Safety Code § 19955, et 26 seq.; (5) a claim for damages for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has 27 28 1 jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law

2 claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 6–7.

3 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

4 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

5 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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