Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Luz Zendejas to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order directs Plaintiff and counsel to address the statutory damages sought and provide declarations concerning whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that failure to respond may result in dismissal of the state-law claims.
Holdings
- The court did not yet decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should retain jurisdiction and warned that an inadequate or untimely response could lead to dismissal of the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
- Whether Plaintiff and counsel satisfy the statutory definition of high-frequency litigants under California law.
- What amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
- Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…