Sepulveda v. Russell J. Bruzzone, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-03166
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 RICHARD SEPULVEDA, Case No. 24-cv-03166-TSH

6 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 7 v.

8 RUSSELL J. BRUZZONE, INC., 9 Defendant.

10 11 On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff Richard Sepulveda filed this Complaint against Defendant 12 Russell Bruzzone, Inc., dba Marathon Gas, alleging claims under the American with Disabilities 13 Act (“ADA”), California’s Health and Safety Code, California’s Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), 14 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Compl., ECF No. 1. These claims stem 15 from alleged barriers Mr. Sepulveda encountered (such as lack of accessible parking) while he 16 visited Marathon Gas, which is owned and operated by Russell Bruzzone, Inc. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. 17 Defendant has not appeared in this action, and default has been entered. ECF No. 9. On 18 September 18, 2024, Mr. Sepulveda filed a Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 12. 19 Based upon the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Vo v. Choi, the Court finds it appropriate 20 for Mr. Sepulveda to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental 21 jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 22 2022) (holding that the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 23 Unruh Act claim). The Unruh Act relies on the ADA’s substantive rules but expands the remedies 24 available in a private action to “actual” and treble damages. See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 25 1211 (9th Cir. 2021). “In response to the resulting substantial volume of claims asserted under the 26 Unruh Act, and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain 27 monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure 1 concern.” Id. at 1211–12. These heightened pleading requirements apply to actions alleging a 2 “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any civil claim in a 3 civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including, but not limited to, a claim 4 brought under Section 51, 54, 54.1, or 55, based wholly or in part on an alleged violation of any 5 construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1). The requirements 6 apply not just to claims brought under the Unruh Act, but also to related disability access claims 7 under the California Health and Safety Code and the CDPA. See Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 2023 WL 8 5020267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2023); Gilbert v. Singh, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 9 Feb. 27, 2023). 10 In addition, California also imposed limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” which is 11 defined as “[a] plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging a construction-related 12 accessibility violation within the 12-month period immediately preceding the filing of the current 13 complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 14 425.55(b)(1). The definition of “high-frequency litigants” also extends to attorneys. See id. § 15 425.55(b)(2). “High-frequency litigants” are subject to a special filing fee and further heightened 16 pleading requirements. Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1207 (citing Cal. Gov’t Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. 17 Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A)). 18 By enacting these restrictions on the filing of construction-related accessibility claims, the 19 California Legislature has expressed a desire to limit the financial burdens California businesses 20 may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act, the California Health & Safety 21 Code, and the CDPA. Id. at 1206–07, 1212; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2. The Ninth Circuit 22 has also expressed “concerns about comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to file these 23 actions in federal court to circumvent “California’s procedural requirements.” See Vo, 49 F.4th at 24 1171–72. 25 “[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district 26 courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the 27 action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 1 || jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental 2 || jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” 3 including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the character 4 || of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” City of 5 Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997). Since Arroyo and Vo, district courts 6 || have frequently declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims brought under 7 the Unruh Act and other California disability access statutes. See, e.g., Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 8 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024); Sepulveda v. Kobaree, 9 2023 WL 5020267, at *2; Gilbert, 2023 WL 2239335, at *2; Johnson v. Constantia Cap. Ltd., 10 || 2022 WL 3925290, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2022); Garcia v. Maciel, 2022 WL 395316, at *3 11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). These courts have also denied plaintiffs’ default judgment motions 12 || without prejudice to renewal as to the remaining ADA claim. See Sepulveda v. Taqueria y 13 Carniceria Martinez LLC, 2024 WL 69066, at *2. 14 Here, a review of Mr. Sepulveda’s prior cases in this District reveals that he has filed ten or 3 15 more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the twelve-month a 16 || period immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint. See Norton v. LVNV Funding, 3 17 || LLC, 396 F. Supp. 3d 901, 909 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (noting that “a court can take judicial notice of its S 18 || own files and records under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”) (citation omitted). 19 Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing for the Motion for Default 20 || Judgment, currently set for October 31, 2024, and ORDERS Mr. Sepulveda to show cause, in 21 writing, by October 3, 2024, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental 22 || jurisdiction over his state law claims. An inadequate response may result in the undersigned 23 || recommending that supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims be declined and that they 24 || be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1367(c). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 20, 2024 27 TAA. | THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge