(PS) Dozier v. Mai

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 21, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00759
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEE DOZIER, 1:23-cv-00759-DAD-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 CHI MAI, ET AL. 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On May 16, 2023, plaintiff filed this action asserting violations of the Americans with 19 Disabilities Act (ADA) and Unruh Civil Rights Act. (ECF No. 1.) These claims stem from 20 alleged barriers plaintiff encountered while he visited a facility owned, operated, or leased by 21 defendant Chi Mai (“defendant”). (See generally, id.) 22 On November 22, 2023, after defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the clerk’s 23 office entered default. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendant on 24 January 16, 2024, and set a hearing for February 21, 2024. (ECF No. 18.) Defendant did not file 25 any opposition to the motion, and the undersigned took plaintiff’s motion under submission and 26 vacated the motion hearing date.1 (ECF No. 22.) 27 1 On February 20, 2024, defendant, proceeding without counsel, filed a document entitled “Notice 28 of Dishonor.” (ECF No. 23, Notice of Inquiry.) However, defendant has not filed a response to 1 In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court “shall 2 have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 3 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 4 III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction 5 exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 6 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 7 California, in response to the substantial volume of claims asserted under the Unruh Act 8 and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain monetary relief 9 for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure accessibility to others, 10 enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 11 1211–12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements apply to actions alleging a 12 “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any civil claim in a 13 civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not limited to, a claim 14 brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any 15 construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). 16 California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” defined as: 17 A plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction- related accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately 18 preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related 19 accessibility violation. 20 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigant” also extends to 21 attorneys. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a 22 special filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. See Cal. Gov. Code § 70616.5; 23 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing of construction- 24 related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens 25 California's businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. See 26 Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, *2. The Ninth Circuit has also 27 expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to circumvent

28 plaintiff’s complaint, opposed plaintiff’s motion, or sought to vacate the entry of default. 1 “California’s procedural requirements.” Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2022). 2 Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these limits and pursue state law damages 3 in a manner inconsistent with the state law's requirements. See generally, Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 4 1211–12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171–72. For this reason, district courts in California routinely decline 5 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims filed by high-frequency litigants. 6 See e.g., Escobedo v. Singh, 2024 WL 1096056, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2024); Neal v. Pac. 7 Cap. LLC, 2024 WL 776582, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2024); Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria 8 Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024). 9 Here, a review of plaintiff’s prior cases from within this district shows that he has filed ten 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve-month 11 period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. The court thus orders plaintiff 12 to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 13 plaintiff's Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo, 49 F.4th at 1167 (holding the district 14 court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh Act and ADA case). 15 Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, plaintiff shall show cause, 16 in writing, why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s 17 Unruh Act claim. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to respond may result in a recommendation to 18 dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is 19 warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order”); see also Hells Canyon 20 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, an inadequate 21 response may result in the undersigned recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over 22 plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh claim be dismissed without prejudice 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 ORDER 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, plaintiff show cause, in writing, 4 why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over □□□□□□□□□□□ 5 Unruh Act claim. 6 2. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to respond may result in a recommendation to dismiss 7 of the entire action without prejudice. 8 | Dated: March 21, 2024 / hice ANKE) flo ° CAROLYN K DELANEY? 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 21,d0z1.0759 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28