Latanya Williams v. Kim Vo Salon, et al.

Summary

The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws arising from an alleged ADA violation. The response must address the statutory damages sought and provide declarations concerning whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant; the response is due June 5, 2025.

Holdings

1. A federal court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time while the action is pending.
2. The district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims for reasons identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including concerns regarding federal-state comity.

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 the plaintiff should be required to provide information concerning the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and the possible high-frequency-litigant status of plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel.

Disposition

other