Summary
The Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Lamar Myers to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim arising from alleged ADA violations. The court directed Plaintiff and counsel to provide information and declarations concerning the statutory damages sought and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that inadequate or untimely responses could result in dismissal of the state-law claims without further notice.
Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Decision date
May 28, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-04308-FLA-SK
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- Whether Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing the statutory definition of a high-frequency litigant before the court determines whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction.
Holdings
- Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, and a district court may decline to exercise it under the circumstances specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including when all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
- Plaintiff must file a written response within fourteen days explaining why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought, and submitting declarations under penalty of perjury addressing the statutory high-frequency-litigant criteria.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…