Summary
The Central District of California ordered the parties to submit a joint status report addressing alleged ADA barriers, remedial measures, and potential summary judgment motions. The court also ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations concerning high-frequency litigant status. The order warns that failure to respond may result in dismissal of the action or state-law claims.
Questions Presented
- What information should the parties provide concerning investigation or remediation of the alleged ADA barriers and their potential effect on mootness?
- Why should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367?
- Whether plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must provide declarations concerning whether plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- G. v. Fay Sch., 931 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC, 2017 WL 5624941, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2017)(followed)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001)(followed)
- Molski v. Foster Freeze Paso Robles, 267 Fed. App'x 631 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…