1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSCAR RAMOS, Case No. 2:25-cv-02693-WBS-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 GLOBAL LIQUORS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA COUNTRY 15 CORNER LIQUOR, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Oscar Ramos filed this action against Defendant 19 Global Liquors, Inc. dba Country Corner Liquor,1 alleging the following causes of action: 20 (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 § 12101, et seq.; (2) violation of California’s Health and Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; 22 (3) violation of California’s Disabled Person Act pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1, 23 and 54.3; and (4) violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act pursuant to Cal. Civ. 24 Code §§ 51 and 51.5.2 Compl. ¶¶ 18-71. These claims stem from alleged barriers 25 Plaintiff encountered while he visited Country Corner Liquor, which is owned and 26
27 1 Plaintiff also names Doe Defendants 1-50. Compl. ¶ 9 (ECF No. 1). 2 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) 28 and Local Rule 302(c)(19). 1 operated by Defendant Global Liquors, Inc. Compl. ¶¶ 3-3. On December 17, 2025, 2 Plaintiff requested a Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendant Global Liquors, Inc., which 3 was entered on December 18, 2025. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed 4 a motion for default judgment and set a hearing for March 10, 2026. Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 5 9.). Defendant was served with the motion on the same day. (ECF No. 9-3.) On February 6 24, 2026, after Defendant had failed to oppose the motion, the Court vacated the 7 hearing date and directed Defendant to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 8 within 14 days from the date of the order. (ECF No. 10.) As of March 17, 2026, 9 Defendant has not responded or appeared in this action.3 10 In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court 11 “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in 12 the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 13 controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 14 Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to 15 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 16 Here, the Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiff to show cause why the Court 17 should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 18 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the district 19 court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim). 20 In response to the substantial volume of claims asserted under the Unruh Act and the 21 concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain monetary relief 22 for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure accessibility to 23 others, California enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. 24 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements 25 apply to actions alleging a “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law
26 3 Plaintiff has not requested that default judgment be entered against any Doe 27 Defendants. See Docket. Plaintiff has not served process on any Doe Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The Clerk of the Court has not entered 28 default as to any Doe Defendants pursuant to Rule 55(a). 1 defines as “any civil claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public 2 accommodation, including but not limited to, a claim brought under Sections 51, 54, 3 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any construction-related 4 accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). The requirements apply not just to 5 claims brought under the Unruh Act, but also to claims related to disability access under 6 the California’s Health and Safety Code and California’s Disabled Person Act. See 7 Gilbert v. Singh, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (holding claims 8 brought under California Health and Safety Code are “construction-related accessibility 9 claims” that are subject to the same pleading and filing requirements as a claim under 10 the Unruh Act) (citing Vo, 49 F.4th at 1172-74; Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211-14); Sepulveda 11 v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 5020267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2023) (holding California Health 12 and Safety Code claims are “subject to the same procedural requirements as Unruh Act 13 and Disabled Person Act claims”). 14 In addition, California also imposed limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” which 15 is defined as “[a] plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction- 16 related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing 17 of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. 18 Proc. § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigant” also extends to attorneys. 19 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a 20 special filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. See Cal. Govt. Code 21 § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing 22 of construction-related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the 23 financial burdens California businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under 24 the Unruh Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the California Disabled 25 Person Act. See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2. 26 The Ninth Circuit has also expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by 27 permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 28 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue 1 state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law's requirements. See 2 Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211-12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72. For this reason, district courts in 3 California routinely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 4 brought under the Unruh Act and other California disability access statutes. See, e.g., 5 Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6 5, 2024); Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2; Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 5020267, at 7 *2. Courts have also denied a plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without prejudice 8 subject to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. See Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 9 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSCAR RAMOS, Case No. 2:25-cv-02693-WBS-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 GLOBAL LIQUORS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA COUNTRY 15 CORNER LIQUOR, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff Oscar Ramos filed this action against Defendant 19 Global Liquors, Inc. dba Country Corner Liquor,1 alleging the following causes of action: 20 (1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) of 1990 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 21 § 12101, et seq.; (2) violation of California’s Health and Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; 22 (3) violation of California’s Disabled Person Act pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1, 23 and 54.3; and (4) violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act pursuant to Cal. Civ. 24 Code §§ 51 and 51.5.2 Compl. ¶¶ 18-71. These claims stem from alleged barriers 25 Plaintiff encountered while he visited Country Corner Liquor, which is owned and 26
27 1 Plaintiff also names Doe Defendants 1-50. Compl. ¶ 9 (ECF No. 1). 2 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) 28 and Local Rule 302(c)(19). 1 operated by Defendant Global Liquors, Inc. Compl. ¶¶ 3-3. On December 17, 2025, 2 Plaintiff requested a Clerk’s entry of default as to Defendant Global Liquors, Inc., which 3 was entered on December 18, 2025. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On January 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed 4 a motion for default judgment and set a hearing for March 10, 2026. Pl. Mot. (ECF No. 5 9.). Defendant was served with the motion on the same day. (ECF No. 9-3.) On February 6 24, 2026, after Defendant had failed to oppose the motion, the Court vacated the 7 hearing date and directed Defendant to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 8 within 14 days from the date of the order. (ECF No. 10.) As of March 17, 2026, 9 Defendant has not responded or appeared in this action.3 10 In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court 11 “shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in 12 the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 13 controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 14 Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to 15 decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 16 Here, the Court finds it appropriate for Plaintiff to show cause why the Court 17 should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 18 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the district 19 court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim). 20 In response to the substantial volume of claims asserted under the Unruh Act and the 21 concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain monetary relief 22 for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure accessibility to 23 others, California enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. 24 Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements 25 apply to actions alleging a “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law
26 3 Plaintiff has not requested that default judgment be entered against any Doe 27 Defendants. See Docket. Plaintiff has not served process on any Doe Defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The Clerk of the Court has not entered 28 default as to any Doe Defendants pursuant to Rule 55(a). 1 defines as “any civil claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public 2 accommodation, including but not limited to, a claim brought under Sections 51, 54, 3 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any construction-related 4 accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). The requirements apply not just to 5 claims brought under the Unruh Act, but also to claims related to disability access under 6 the California’s Health and Safety Code and California’s Disabled Person Act. See 7 Gilbert v. Singh, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (holding claims 8 brought under California Health and Safety Code are “construction-related accessibility 9 claims” that are subject to the same pleading and filing requirements as a claim under 10 the Unruh Act) (citing Vo, 49 F.4th at 1172-74; Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211-14); Sepulveda 11 v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 5020267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2023) (holding California Health 12 and Safety Code claims are “subject to the same procedural requirements as Unruh Act 13 and Disabled Person Act claims”). 14 In addition, California also imposed limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” which 15 is defined as “[a] plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction- 16 related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing 17 of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. 18 Proc. § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigant” also extends to attorneys. 19 See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a 20 special filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. See Cal. Govt. Code 21 § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing 22 of construction-related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the 23 financial burdens California businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under 24 the Unruh Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the California Disabled 25 Person Act. See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2. 26 The Ninth Circuit has also expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by 27 permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 28 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue 1 state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law's requirements. See 2 Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211-12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72. For this reason, district courts in 3 California routinely decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims 4 brought under the Unruh Act and other California disability access statutes. See, e.g., 5 Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6 5, 2024); Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2; Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 5020267, at 7 *2. Courts have also denied a plaintiff’s motion for default judgment without prejudice 8 subject to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. See Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 9 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2. 10 A review of Plaintiff’s prior cases in this district shows that he has filed ten or more 11 complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve-month 12 period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. See Sykes v. Rios, 2024 13 WL 5186841, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024) (“It is well established that a court can 14 take judicial notice of its own files and records under [Federal Rule of Evidence] 201.”). 15 Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days 16 from the date of this order why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental 17 jurisdiction over his state law claims. 18 ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 20 1. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall show 21 cause, in writing, why the Court should not decline to exercise 22 supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Plaintiff shall also 23 address whether Defendants Does 1-50 will be dismissed by Plaintiff. 24 2. An inadequate response as to why the Court should not decline to exercise 25 supplemental jurisdiction may result in the undersigned recommending that 26 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims be declined and 27 that they be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 28 3. Plaintiff is further warned that failure to respond may result in a 1 recommendation to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. 2 3 | Dated: March 18, 2026 - 4 op WL 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 || 4, ramo2693.25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28