Mario Mendoza v. John Au et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Mario Mendoza to show cause why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Relying on Arroyo v. Rosas, the Court indicated that exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity may warrant declining jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims at an early stage of litigation. The Court required Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Holdings

1. Because Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. The court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) when exceptional circumstances and compelling federal-state comity concerns are present, including the circumstances identified by the Ninth Circuit in Arroyo v. Rosas.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Unruh Act claim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction because it is closely related to the ADA claim.
2. Whether exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity concerns under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), as discussed in Arroyo v. Rosas, may justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim at this early stage.
3. Whether Plaintiff should be required to show cause why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

other