Julio Cruz v. Charles D. Burrus, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Julio Cruz to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims in an ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act action. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), Arroyo v. Rosas, and Vo v. Choi, and required Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide information relevant to California’s high-frequency litigant requirements.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a plaintiff's right, and a district court may decline to exercise it when one of the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is present.
2. ADA and Unruh Act cases may present exceptional circumstances warranting declination of supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims where litigants may be circumventing California procedural requirements designed to limit such litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff should be required to show cause why the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
2. Whether the asserted ADA and Unruh Act claims may present exceptional circumstances supporting declination of supplemental jurisdiction because of California procedural requirements governing high-frequency litigants.

Disposition

other