Larry Dunn v. Eliko Kapanadze et al.

Summary

The Central District of California orders Plaintiff Larry Dunn to show cause why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Citing Arroyo v. Rosas, the Court identifies potential exceptional circumstances involving California’s regulation of high-frequency litigants and requires Plaintiff to disclose requested statutory damages and facts relevant to that status.

Holdings

1. Because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, the court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), but that jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff.
2. The circumstances identified in Arroyo v. Rosas concerning ADA-based Unruh Act claims and California's reforms for high-frequency litigants may constitute exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) and appear to justify declining supplemental jurisdiction here.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Whether the circumstances identified by the Ninth Circuit in Arroyo v. Rosas constitute exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) that may justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim.
3. Whether plaintiff should be required to show cause why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

other