Moises Villalobos v. Valrod Ratavousian et al.

Summary

The Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Moises Villalobos to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order also requires Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that failure to respond or an inadequate response may result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The court did not make a final determination on supplemental jurisdiction but ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. The plaintiff was required to respond within ten days, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide sworn declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants; failure to respond could result in dismissal of the action without prejudice, and an inadequate response would result in dismissal of the state-law claims under § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's California statutory and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. What information plaintiff must provide to allow the court to evaluate the amount of statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other