Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01493/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01493-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ayoob Mohamed Alamsi
Defendant
Julio Cruz
Plaintiff
Gas 4 Less
Defendant
Saleh Ahmed Salah
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALEH AHMED SALAH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01493-JLT-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

JURISDICTION

14-DAY DEADLINE

On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff Julio Cruz initiated this action with the filing of a 

complaint against Defendants Saleh Ahmed Salah, doing business as Gas 4 Less, and Ayoob 

Mohamed Alamsi. (Doc. 1). The complaint asserts claims for injunctive relief under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights 

Act (“Unruh Act”), violation of California Disabled Persons Act, and related state law causes of 

action. Id.

Based upon the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Vo v. Choi, this Court will order Plaintiff to

show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022)

(holding the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint Unruh

Act and ADA case).

In the Unruh Act, a state law cause of action expands the remedies available in a private

Case 1:24-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/10/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

action. California, in response to the resulting substantial volume of claims asserted under the

Unruh Act and the concern that high-frequency litigants may be using the statute to obtain

monetary relief for themselves without accompanying adjustments to locations to assure

accessibility to others, enacted filing restrictions designed to address that concern. Arroyo v.

Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2021). These heightened pleading requirements apply to

actions alleging a “construction-related accessibility claim,” which California law defines as “any

civil claim in a civil action with respect to a place of public accommodation, including but not

limited to, a claim brought under Section 51[ ], based wholly or in part on an alleged

violation of any construction-related accessibility standard.” Cal. Civ. Code § 55.52(a)(1).

Moreover, California imposes additional limitations on “high-frequency litigants,” defined

as:

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.

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b)(1). Such “high-frequency litigants” are subject to a special 

filing fee and further heightened pleading requirements. Vo, 49 F.4th at 1170. See Cal. Gov. 

Code § 70616.5; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.50(a)(4)(A). By enacting restrictions on the filing of 

construction-related accessibility claims, California has expressed a desire to limit the financial 

burdens California’s businesses may face for claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. 

See Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1206-07, 1212. The Court of Appeals has also expressed “concerns about 

comity and fairness” by permitting plaintiffs to circumvent “California’s procedural

requirements.” Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171. Plaintiffs who file these actions in federal court evade these 

limits and pursue state law damages in a manner inconsistent with the state law’s requirements. 

See generally, Arroyo, 19 F.4th at 1211–12; Vo, 49 F.4th at 1171-72.

In an action over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction, that court “shall

have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article

III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Even if supplemental jurisdiction

exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 

Case 1:24-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Such discretion may be exercised “[d]epending on a host of factors” 

including “the circumstances of the particular case, the nature of the state law claims, the 

character of the governing state law, and the relationship between the state and federal claims.” 

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997).

According to the undersigned’s review of filings with this Court and with the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiff Julio Cruz and Plaintiff’s counsel in this 

action have filed more than 10 cases asserting ADA and Unruh Act claims in these two districts 

within the past two weeks.

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing and within 14 days of issuance 

of this order, why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim;

2. In responding to the show cause order, Plaintiff is further ORDERED to:

a. identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover; and

b. submit declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, signed under penalty 

of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if each is a 

“high-frequency litigant;”

3. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to respond may result in a recommendation to 

dismiss of the entire action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (stating that dismissal is 

warranted “[i]f the plaintiff fails to ... comply with ... a court order”); see Hells Canyon Pres. 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); and

4. Further, an inadequate response will result in the Court recommending that 

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim be declined and that the Unruh claim 

be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01493-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3