Clifton Walker v. Walgreen Co. et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Clifton Walker to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state-law claims. The court directed Plaintiff and counsel to address the statutory damages sought and provide declarations concerning whether Plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law, warning that inadequate responses could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and a district court may decline to exercise it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including when all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
2. The court required plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state-law claims, and required plaintiff and counsel to submit information and declarations concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information plaintiff and counsel must provide for the court to determine whether declining supplemental jurisdiction may be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Disposition

other