Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01595/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Cuevas
Plaintiff
MERIDAN GENERAL STORE
Defendant
Louis E. Martinez
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CUEVAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS E. MARTINEZ, doing business as 

MERIDAN GENERAL STORE,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01595-JLT-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

JURISDICTION

Deadline: January 13, 2025

On December 27, 2024, Plaintiff Joshua Cuevas initiated this action against Defendant

Louis E. Martinez, doing business as Meridan General Store. (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”), 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-01595-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/30/24 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

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 constructionrelated 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. 28

Case 1:24-cv-01595-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/30/24 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

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 more than 10 cases asserting 

ADA and Unruh Act claims in these two districts within the previous three months. 

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, no later than January 13, 2025,

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 Act and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01595-JLT-CDB Document 5 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 3