Korttney Elliott v. La Michoacana Bakery, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 25, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-04445
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04445-MEMF-KS Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:42

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-04445-MEMF(KSx) 11 KORTTNEY ELLIOTT,

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 LA MICHOACANA BAKERY, INC.; and 15 DOES 1 through 10,

16 Defendants.

20 On June 29, 2022, Plaintiff Korttney Elliott filed a Complaint against Defendant La

21 Michoacana Bakery, Inc. asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation 22 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010–12213; (2) a claim for 23 damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, 24 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 25 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY 26 CODE §§ 19955, et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this 27 Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the 28 state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 2–3. 1 Case 2:22-cv-04445-MEMF-KS Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:43

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

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

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

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

12 the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A

13 “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

14 claims. See CAL. 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-04445-MEMF-KS Document 10 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:44

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by July 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: July 25, 2022 ___________________________________

11 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

12 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3