Robert Mena v. Poppi Johnson LLC et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff Robert Mena to show cause why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California state-law claims. The order focuses on California’s procedural restrictions on construction-related accessibility claims and high-frequency litigants, and on the considerations governing supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing the litigation histories of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than mandatory, and a federal court may decline to exercise it when one of the grounds identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is present, while considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
2. Before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court may require Plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations and other information bearing on their status as high-frequency litigants under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and related California state-law claims.
2. Whether the court should require Plaintiff and counsel to provide information necessary to determine whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other