Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01175/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01175-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Cuevas
Plaintiff
HF & CG Holdings
Defendant
Lifestyle Frazier Park Re LLC
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

JOSHUA CUEVAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HF & CG HOLDINGS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01175-JLT-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

JURISDICTION

Deadline: October 17, 2024

On October 2, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Cuevas initiated this action against Defendants HF & 

CG Holdings and Lifestyle Frazier Park Re LLC (“Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) The complaint 

asserts claims for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), a 

claim for statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California 

Civil Code §§ 51-53, 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

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

Case 1:24-cv-01175-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 4
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

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

Case 1:24-cv-01175-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 4
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

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

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 Cuevas has filed at least 10 cases asserting 

ADA and Unruh Act claims in these two districts within a 12-month period, and more than 20

cases in the last four years. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than October 17, 2024,

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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:24-cv-01175-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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: October 3, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01175-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 10/03/24 Page 4 of 4