Korttney Elliott v. Hour Lim

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02371
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02371-MEMF-KS Document9 Filed 04/13/22 Pagelof3 Page ID #:24 2 4 6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | KORTTNEY ELLIOTT, Case No.: 2:22-cv-02371-MEMF(KSx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S 14 STATE LAW CLAIMS 15 HOUR LIM; and DOES 1 through 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff Korttney Elliott filed a Complaint against Defendant Hour Lim, 21 | asserting: (1) a claim for mjunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with 22 || Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to 23 || California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for 24 || damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim 25 || for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 8§ 19955 et seq.; 26 || and (5)a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction 27 || over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are 28 || brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” /d. at {| 6-7.

Case 2:22-cv-02371-MEMF-KS Document 9 Filed 04/13/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:25

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

2 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

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

16 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons

17 Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. §

18 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory

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

20 Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts

21 necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 22 provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-02371-MEMF-KS Document 9 Filed 04/13/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:26

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 26, 2022. The failure to

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

3 Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California

4 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim

5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: April 13, 2022 ___________________________________

11 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

12 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3