Bernard Taruc v. Valente Melendez, et al.

Summary

The Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The court also requires the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and requires the plaintiff and counsel to provide declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law. A response is due by August 18, 2025, and failure to respond may result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. Because the complaint appeared to invoke federal-question jurisdiction for the ADA claim and only supplemental jurisdiction for the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.
2. The court required plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and required plaintiff and counsel to submit sworn declarations providing facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff should show cause why the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims.
2. What information plaintiff and counsel must provide regarding statutory damages and potential classification as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other