Larry Dunn v. Robert Burns Liquor, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state law. The order discusses 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California’s efforts to address disability-access litigation, and decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over certain construction-access claims. Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and a district court may decline to exercise it under the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
2. The court did not yet decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Unruh Act claim and related state-law claims should remain in federal court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information Plaintiff and counsel must provide to permit the court to evaluate whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Disposition

other