Darwin Boggs v. Good Year; Ronald O. Nuckles; and Does 1 to 10

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered plaintiff Darwin Boggs to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California state-law claims. The court directed Boggs and his counsel to provide information and declarations concerning claimed statutory damages and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Holdings

1. The court did not finally decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Boggs to show cause why the court should exercise jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. Boggs and Boggs's counsel were ordered to submit declarations under penalty of perjury providing facts necessary to determine whether either satisfied California's definition of a high-frequency litigant, including the number of relevant claims filed or represented in the preceding twelve months.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Boggs's California-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. Whether Boggs and counsel must provide information and declarations addressing the statutory definition of high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other