Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from alleged disability-access violations. The order also requires the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that failure to respond or an inadequate response may result in dismissal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's California statutory and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
- Whether Plaintiff must provide information concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.
- Whether failure to respond adequately to the order to show cause may warrant dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Holdings
- Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court has discretion under § 1367(c) to decline to exercise that jurisdiction; the court therefore ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the California claims should not be dismissed.
- Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel containing facts necessary to determine whether either qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.
- Failure to respond to the order to show cause may result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, and an inadequate response will result in dismissal of the state-law claims under § 1367(c).
Key quotations
“Even if supplemental jurisdiction exists, however, district courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.”
“Failure to respond may, without further warning, result in dismissal of the entire action without prejudice.”
Factual background
The complaint alleges a violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and seeks injunctive relief. It also asserts California claims seeking damages under the Unruh Act, California's Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence, apparently based on construction-related accessibility allegations.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting a federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim for injunctive relief and state-law claims for damages under the Unruh Act, California's Disabled Persons Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and negligence. Before resolving the state-law claims, the district court ordered Plaintiff to explain why supplemental jurisdiction should not be declined and required information concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status.