Kenneth Davidson v. 2550 S. Soto Street II LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson to show cause why his California Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, the Court explains that retaining supplemental jurisdiction could undermine California’s reforms concerning high-frequency litigants and affect federal-state comity. Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. A district court has discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when exceptional circumstances, including the federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas, are present. Because this case is at an early stage and the merits have not been adjudicated, the court indicated that such circumstances appear to justify declining supplemental jurisdiction, subject to Plaintiff's response to the order to show cause.
2. The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days and required a response identifying the statutory damages sought and supplying declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff and his counsel satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) because retaining the claim could undermine California's statutory reforms concerning construction-related disability-access litigation and impair federal-state comity.
2. Whether Plaintiff should be required to identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn factual information relevant to whether Plaintiff and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other