Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order to show cause concerning whether it should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s California state-law claims. The Court directed Plaintiff to explain why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations addressing high-frequency-litigant status under California law.
Holdings
- The court deferred the jurisdictional decision and ordered Plaintiff to show cause within ten days why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
- Plaintiff and counsel were ordered to submit declarations under penalty of perjury providing facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy California's definitions of high-frequency litigant, including the number of relevant claims filed or handled during the preceding twelve months.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
- Whether Plaintiff must provide information and sworn declarations concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and Plaintiff's and counsel's potential high-frequency-litigant status before the court decides whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017)(followed by analogy)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…