Marquise Bailey v. AMKO Restaurant Furniture, Inc., 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 state-law disability-access and negligence claims. The order discusses California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions, directs the plaintiff and counsel to provide declarations and identify the statutory damages sought, and sets a response deadline of June 25, 2025.

Holdings

1. The court did not make a final determination concerning supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
2. Plaintiff was required to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and plaintiff and counsel were required to submit declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether they satisfy California's definition of high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. Whether the plaintiff must provide information about the statutory damages sought and declarations establishing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Disposition

other