Cesar Acevedo v. Glen Capri Inn and Suites, LLC, 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 other state laws. The court required information concerning the statutory damages sought and whether the plaintiff or counsel qualified as a high-frequency litigant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The district court may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of the action and may require the parties to provide information relevant to that inquiry.
2. The court did not finally decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why jurisdiction should be exercised and warned that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims.
2. Whether Plaintiff must provide information concerning the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55.
3. Whether the court may raise and examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.

Disposition

other