Julio Cruz v. Taquerias Guadalajara Anaheim Inc. 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 California state-law claims arising from alleged disability-access violations. The order discusses 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California’s procedural restrictions on construction-related accessibility claims, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than mandatory, and a federal court may decline to exercise it under the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), while weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act and related California state-law claims.
2. Whether the court should require plaintiff and counsel to provide information and declarations concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status before deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other