Summary
The court issued an order to show cause concerning its authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state-law claims. The order directs the plaintiff to provide the amount of statutory damages sought and facts concerning whether the plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, with a response due January 6, 2026.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and other state-law claims.
- Whether Plaintiff must provide information about the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages and whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
Holdings
- The court has a sua sponte obligation and authority to confirm that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction at any time while the action is pending.
- The court required Plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction; it stated that failure to respond could result in declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), or dismissal of the entire action without prejudice.
Key quotations
“This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction.” (at 1)
“Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice” (at 2)
Factual background
The complaint alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeks injunctive relief. It also asserts an Unruh Civil Rights Act damages claim and other state-law claims, with supplemental jurisdiction asserted as the sole basis for federal jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting an ADA claim for injunctive relief, an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim for damages, and other state-law claims. The court ordered Plaintiff to respond in writing by January 6, 2026, explaining why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and providing information concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status.