Guri Gonzalez v. 1233 S. Hope, Inc. et al.

Summary

The Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state law. The order requests briefing on statutory damages and declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and the district court may decline to exercise it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including when exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons counsel against jurisdiction.
2. The court did not yet decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered plaintiff to show cause and provide information relevant to the jurisdictional determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. What information plaintiff and counsel must provide to permit the court to evaluate the discretionary jurisdictional factors and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other