Julio Cruz v. Thai Brothers 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 court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California pleading and filing requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and decisions involving high-frequency litigants. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and counsel meet California’s high-frequency-litigant definitions.

Holdings

1. The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and ordered plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act and related California state-law claims.
2. Whether plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, such that fairness and comity may counsel against supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other