On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff Jong Ja Kim filed a Complaint against Defendant Varty Mazlemian 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; (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Act, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq.; 1 ase 2:22-cv-00470-MEMF-SK Document16 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2of3 Page ID #:136 | and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction || over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are || brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.” Jd. at §§ 1-2. 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’! 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 CobE § 70616.5.

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, the California Disabled Persons | Act claim, the Unfair Competition Act claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In | responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages || Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his 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). Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by April 21, 2022. 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, the California Page ID #:137

Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2022 ___________________________________

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG

United States District Judge