Mario Mendoza v. The Master Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.

Summary

The court issued an order to show cause concerning whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state-law claims in an ADA action. The order requires the plaintiff to provide the amount of statutory damages sought and facts addressing whether the plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law, with supporting declarations.

Holdings

1. A federal court may raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of an action.
2. The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and other state-law claims for reasons identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including the substantial federal-state comity concerns associated with ADA-based Unruh Act claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and other state-law claims.
2. Whether the court should require Plaintiff to provide information relevant to the court's discretionary supplemental-jurisdiction analysis and potential application of California's high-frequency-litigant provisions.

Disposition

other