Ana Ventura v. Partybake Insighters, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff Ana Ventura to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims. The order discusses California pleading and fee requirements for construction-related Unruh Act accessibility claims and Plaintiff’s alleged status as a high-frequency litigant. Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and submit a declaration addressing whether she meets the statutory definition; the state-law claims may be dismissed without prejudice if she does not timely respond.

Holdings

1. The court did not yet decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's California state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Whether Plaintiff should be required to provide information concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and her potential status as a high-frequency litigant before the court decides whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other