Mediatek Inc. v. NXP Semiconductors N.V.

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-04970-JAK-AFM Document 32 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1478

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2: 22-cv-04032 MEMF(AFMx) 11 ROBERT CAULEY,

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 MAKIS HAVADJIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

20 On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Cauley filed a Complaint against Defendants Makis

21 Havadjia, as partner of the Havajia-Georgiou, a general partnership, and Does 1–10, asserting: (1) a 22 claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 23 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil 24 Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the 25 California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and 26 injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §§ 19955 et seq.; and (5) a claim 27 for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA 28 1 Case 2:21-cv-04970-JAK-AFM Document 32 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1479

1 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to

2 pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Id. ¶¶ 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.

16 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

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

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

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

20 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory

21 damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their responses to the 22 Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 23 necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 24 provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 25 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within three weeks of the date of 26 this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without 27 further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh 28 2 Case 2:21-cv-04970-JAK-AFM Document 32 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1480

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

2 and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: July 25, 2022 ___________________________________

8 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

9 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3