Guri Gonzalez v. Larisa A Aivazi, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The order focuses on California pleading and fee requirements for Unruh Act accessibility claims brought by high-frequency litigants. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and provide a declaration addressing high-frequency-litigant status, with a response due July 14, 2025.

Holdings

1. A federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy as claims within the court's original jurisdiction, but supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff.
2. In deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims, the district court must consider the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because California's heightened requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and high-frequency litigants indicate substantial state interests and implicate the considerations identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. Whether Plaintiff should be required to identify the statutory damages sought and provide evidence concerning whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other