Cameron Harrell v. Lorena Contreras et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Cameron Harrell to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and related state-law claims. The order discusses California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for construction-related disability-access claims, as well as considerations of comity, fairness, and judicial economy. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and a district court may decline to exercise it for the reasons identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances presenting compelling reasons.
2. Plaintiff must show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state-law claims, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel satisfy the statutory definition of high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information plaintiff must provide to permit the court to evaluate whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including the amount of statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Disposition

other