Colton Bryant v. Xua Shi et al.

Summary

The Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising alongside an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The order also requires identification of the statutory damages sought and declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that failure to respond or an inadequate response may result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing within ten days why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. The court ordered plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and to submit declarations from plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, signed under penalty of perjury, providing facts necessary to determine whether either qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.
3. Failure to respond may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, and an inadequate response will result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims under § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should require plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. What information plaintiff must provide to permit the court to determine the amount of statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
3. Whether failure to respond to the order or providing an inadequate response could warrant dismissal of the action or dismissal of the state-law claims.

Disposition

other