Bernard Taruc v. Vazgen Papazian

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Bernard Taruc to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state law. The court directed Plaintiff and counsel to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, with a response due within 14 days.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and the district court may decline to exercise it under the circumstances specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. The court did not yet decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it required plaintiff to show cause why the court should retain the Unruh Act and related state-law claims.

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 to permit the court to determine whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and California’s high-frequency-litigant provisions.

Disposition

other