Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The court directs the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Holdings
- The court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted in the complaint.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims alleged in the complaint.
- Whether plaintiff and counsel must provide information and sworn declarations addressing plaintiff's status as a potential high-frequency litigant under California law.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
- Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…