Ana Ventura v. Francisco Flores, et al.

Summary

The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from alleged disability-access violations. The court directed the plaintiff and counsel to identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. The court concluded that it appeared to have supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. The court did not yet decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised and warned that failure to respond could result in declining jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims under § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. Whether California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency-litigant provisions constitute circumstances supporting a possible declination of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

Disposition

other