Mario Mendoza v. A and SJ Markets LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The order addresses California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for construction-related accessibility claims and requires the plaintiff to disclose requested statutory damages and provide a supporting declaration.

Holdings

1. The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims when the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), considered in light of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, weigh against retaining those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Whether plaintiff must show cause and provide information concerning statutory damages and his alleged status as a high-frequency litigant before the court determines whether to retain the state-law claims.

Disposition

other