Marquise Bailey v. ATN Building Materials, Inc.

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 claims under California’s Unruh Act and other state laws. The order discusses California’s heightened pleading and filing requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and high-frequency litigants. It requires the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants, warning that failure to respond or an inadequate response may result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The court did not make a final determination on supplemental jurisdiction; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
2. The court ordered Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and to submit sworn declarations from Plaintiff and counsel providing facts necessary to determine whether either qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act and other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. Whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law and whether the complaint seeks statutory damages subject to California's heightened requirements.

Disposition

other