Jardine Gougis v. FRMC II, LLC, et al.

Summary

The court issued an order to show cause concerning whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state-law claims. The order requires the plaintiff to address the amount of statutory damages sought and provide sworn facts concerning whether the plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law. A response is due July 7, 2025, and failure to respond may result in dismissal or declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A federal district court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that subject-matter jurisdiction exists and may raise the jurisdictional issue at any time while the action is pending.
2. The court may consider declining supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including in light of the substantial federal-state comity concerns identified by the Ninth Circuit in ADA-based Unruh Act litigation; the order did not yet decide whether jurisdiction would ultimately be declined.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and the other state-law claims.
2. Whether plaintiff must provide information concerning the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages and whether plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.
3. Whether the court should order plaintiff to show cause regarding the existence and exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other