Summary
The Central District of California issued an order to show cause concerning plaintiff's ADA and California Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. The court directed plaintiff to explain why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state-law claims, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Holdings
- When a complaint includes state-law claims over which the federal court appears to possess only supplemental jurisdiction, the court may require the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise that jurisdiction and may decline jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims.
- What information plaintiff and counsel must provide so the court can evaluate supplemental jurisdiction and compliance with California's high-frequency-litigant provisions.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (2)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…