Latanya Williams v. J. Kuos Investment LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 5, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-00493-MEMF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:24

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 5:22-cv-00493-MEMF(MRWx) 11 LATANYA WILLIAMS,

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 J. KUO’S INVESTMENT LLC; and DOES 1 to 15 10,

16 Defendants.

21 22 23 On March 18, 2022, Plaintiff Latanya Williams filed a Complaint against Defendant J. Kuo’s 24 Investment LLC, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 25 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a claim for damages 26 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) 27 a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; 28 (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the, CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §§ 1 ase 5:22-cv-00493-MEMF-MRW Document9 Filed 04/05/22 Page2of3 Page ID#:25

1 | 19955 et seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has 2 || jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law 3 || claims are brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Jd. at ]§ 6-7. 4 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 5 || 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when 6 || deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in 7 || each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, 8 || and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’! Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) 9 | (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). 10 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits 11 | brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIv. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading 12 | standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant 13 || case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff's claim, including the 14 | specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff 15 | encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency 16 | litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL. 17 || Gov’T CobE § 70616.5. 18 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 19 | should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 20 | Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 21 | 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory 22 || damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the 23 || Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 24 | necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 25 || provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 26 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 21, 2022. The failure to 27 | timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the 28 || Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California

Case 5:22-cv-00493-MEMF-MRW Document 9 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:26

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

2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: April 5, 2022 ___________________________________

8 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

9 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3