Adam Ghadiri v. L&C Tire Supply et al.

Summary

The Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Adam Ghadiri to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act and negligence claims accompanying his ADA claim. The order relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent concerning high-frequency litigants and California’s procedural requirements, and directs Plaintiff to provide information about the statutory damages sought and his litigation history.

Holdings

1. The court did not finally determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and warned that failure to respond could result in declining jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and negligence claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), particularly because the state claim may substantially predominate or exceptional circumstances may exist.
2. What information plaintiff and counsel must provide to permit the court to determine whether plaintiff satisfies California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.
3. Whether the negligence claim should remain within the court's supplemental jurisdiction if the court declines jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Disposition

other