Miriam Maldonado v. Aoki Lawnmower Shop, Inc., et al.

Summary

The court orders the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws. The order cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Arroyo v. Rosas regarding federal-state comity concerns arising from ADA-based Unruh Act claims. The plaintiff must provide the amount of statutory damages sought and facts concerning whether the plaintiff or counsel is a high-frequency litigant, with a response due November 14, 2025.

Holdings

1. The district court may raise and examine the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and other state-law claims.
2. Whether Plaintiff must provide information concerning the statutory damages sought and potential high-frequency-litigant status to assist the court's jurisdictional determination.

Disposition

other