Theresa Brooke v. Mogul Hospitality Partners-Hawthorne LLC

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-01692-MEMF-MAR Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:39

O

Case No.: 2:23-cv-01692-MEMF-MAR

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S

HAWTHORNE LLC,

Defendants.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a Complaint against Defendant Mogul

Hospitality Partners-Hawthorne LLC, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52, et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 12188, and that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate over the state law claim due to an unspecified portion of the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. 1 Case 2:23-cv-01692-MEMF-MAR Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:40

Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added)

(quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter

pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the

instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim,

including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which

the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A

“high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

claims. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10

or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period

immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related

accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high-

frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.”

CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1)

whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high- frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 425.50(a)(4)(A). 2 Case 2:23-cv-01692-MEMF-MAR Document 10 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:41

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

should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In

responding to this Order to Show Cause:

1. Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.

2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause

with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court

to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited

to:

a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve

months preceding the filing of the present claim; and

b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff’s counsel

has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the

filing of the present claim.

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than fourteen (14) days

from the date of this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause

may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Dated: March 21, 2023 ___________________________________ MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG United States District Judge 3