Larry Dunn v. Paul Fernandez, et al.

Summary

The court orders Plaintiff Larry Dunn to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state-law claims. The response must address the statutory damages sought and provide facts concerning whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law; the response is due December 29, 2025.

Holdings

1. A federal court may raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of an action.
2. The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims for reasons identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and Plaintiff was required to show cause why the court should exercise that jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and the other state-law claims.
2. Whether Plaintiff must provide the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and facts concerning whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.
3. Whether the court may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte during the pendency of the action.

Disposition

other