Angel Garcia v. Victor Manuel Venegas

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Act and other state laws. The Court requires Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants. Failure to respond adequately may result in dismissal of the state-law claims or the entire action without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Although supplemental jurisdiction may exist over related state-law claims, a district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to decline to exercise that jurisdiction after considering the circumstances of the case, the nature and governing character of the state-law claims, and their relationship to the federal claims. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why that discretion should not be exercised here, but did not yet make a final determination declining jurisdiction.
2. The court required plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations containing facts necessary to determine whether plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants under California law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should require plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
2. Whether plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations concerning plaintiff's and counsel's potential status as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other