K. Phillip Taylor v. Walter T. Anderson, as Trustee of the Anderson-McChristy Family Trust, and Does 1 to 10

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff K. Phillip Taylor to show cause why the Court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his California-law claims accompanying his Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The Court directed Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide a declaration addressing whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, with responses due July 7, 2025, and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims within the same Article III case or controversy is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and the court must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.
2. Plaintiff must file a timely response addressing the statutory damages sought and submit a declaration providing evidence relevant to whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Whether plaintiff should be required to show cause and provide information concerning his statutory-damages demand and status as a potential high-frequency litigant before the court decides whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other