Sepulveda v. Isa

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00620
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 24-cv-00620-TSH

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v.

11 ADEL SALEH ISA, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 On February 2, 2024, Plaintiff Richard Sepulveda filed this Complaint against Defendants 15 Adel Saleh Isa dba Los Primos Market and Produce and Abdo Isa alleging claims under the 16 American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Health and Safety Code, California’s 17 Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). 18 Compl., ECF No. 1. These claims stem from alleged barriers Mr. Sepulveda encountered (such as 19 lack of accessible parking and lack of accessible sales counter and aisles) while he visited Los 20 Primos Market and Produce, which is owned and operated by Adel Saleh Isa and Abdo Isa. Id. ¶¶ 21 3-4. Defendants have not appeared in this action, and default has been entered. ECF No. 10. On 22 May 6, 2024, Mr. Sepulveda filed a Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 13. 23 Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, the Court finds it appropriate 24 for Mr. Sepulveda to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental 25 jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 26 2022) (holding that the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 27 Unruh Act claim). The Unruh Act relies on the ADA’s substantive rules but expands the remedies 1 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). “In response to the resulting substantial volume of claims asserted under the 2 Unruh Act, and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain 3 monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure 4 accessibility to others, California chose . . . to impose filing restrictions designed to address that 5 concern.” Id. at 1211–12. These heightened pleading requirements apply to actions alleging a 6 “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any civil claim in a 7 civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including, but not limited to, a claim 8 brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any 9 construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). The requirements 10 apply not just to claims brought under the Unruh Act, but also to related disability access claims 11 under the California Health and Safety Code and the CDPA. See Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 12 5020267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2023); Gilbert v. Singh, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 13 Feb. 27, 2023). 14 In addition, California also imposed limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” which is 15 defined as “[a] plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related 16 accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current 17 complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 18 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigants” also extends to attorneys. See id. § 19 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a special filing fee and further heightened 20 pleading requirements. Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1207 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. 21 Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A)). 22 By enacting these restrictions on the filing of construction-related accessibility claims, the 23 California Legislature has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens California businesses 24 may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act, the California Health & Safety 25 Code, and the CDPA. Id. at 1206–07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2. The Ninth Circuit 26 has also expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to file these 27 actions in federal court to circumvent “California’s procedural requirements.” See Vo, 49 F.4th at 1 “[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district 2 courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the 3 action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 4 Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental 5 jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 6 jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” 7 including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character 8 of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of 9 Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). Since Arroyo and Vo, district courts 10 have frequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims brought under 11 the Unruh Act and other California disability access statutes. See, e.g., Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 12 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024); Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 13 2023 WL 5020267, at *2; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2; Johnson v. Constantia Cap. Ltd., 14 2022 WL 3925290, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022); Garcia v. Maciel, 2022 WL 395316, at *3 15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). These courts have also denied plaintiffs’ default judgment motions 16 without prejudice to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. See Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 17 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2. 18 Here, a review of Mr. Sepulveda’s prior cases from this District reveals that he has filed 19 ten or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve- 20 month period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. See Norton v. LVNV 21 Funding, LLC, 396 F. Supp. 3d 901, 909 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting that “a court can take judicial 22 notice of its own files and records under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”) (citation 23 omitted). 24 Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing for the Motion for Default 25 Judgment, currently set for June 20, 2024, and ORDERS Mr. Sepulveda to show cause, in 26 writing, by July 1, 2024, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 27 over his state law claims. An inadequate response may result in the undersigned recommending 1 without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1367(c). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: June 17, 2024 TAA. |} □ □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

QO 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28