Bernard Taruc v. Hector Cervantes et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state law. The order discusses discretionary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, California’s heightened pleading requirements for construction-access claims, and the potential relevance of high-frequency-litigant provisions.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and a district court may decline to exercise it when one of the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) exists, including dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances presenting compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
2. Plaintiff must respond within fourteen days, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and provide declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff and counsel qualify under California's high-frequency-litigant provisions.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information Plaintiff and counsel must provide for the court to evaluate whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Disposition

other