Mario Mendoza v. Slaves to Ink et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order discusses the discretionary nature of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California’s heightened pleading requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and the interests of fairness and comity. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. The court did not make a final determination on supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and warned that failure to respond could result in declining jurisdiction and dismissing the state-law claims without further notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. Whether the interests of fairness and comity, including California's heightened pleading and high-frequency-litigant requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other