Summary
The Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The order also requires the plaintiff and counsel to provide sworn declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants and to identify the statutory damages sought.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff should be required to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims.
- What information plaintiff and counsel must provide concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.
Holdings
- Because the complaint appeared to present only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
- The court required plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and required plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.
Key quotations
“The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’””
Factual background
The complaint alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and sought injunctive relief. It also asserted a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim seeking damages. The order states that the federal court appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting an ADA claim for injunctive relief and a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim for damages. The court determined that it appeared to possess only supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and ordered plaintiff to explain why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised. The court also required plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations addressing whether they satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant and required identification of the statutory damages sought.