Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The court also required disclosures concerning statutory damages and whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, with a response due June 4, 2025.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims asserted in the complaint.
- What amount of statutory damages the plaintiff seeks.
- Whether the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel satisfy the California statutory definition of a high-frequency litigant.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…