Melanie Delapaz v. Lennox Barber Salon et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order to show cause concerning Plaintiff Melanie Delapaz’s Unruh Act claim arising from alleged ADA accessibility barriers at Lennox Barber Salon. The Court indicated that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) based on the comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas. Plaintiff was ordered to explain within 14 days why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice and to provide information concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status.

Holdings

1. The court preliminarily determined that the circumstances identified in Arroyo v. Rosas appear to warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), because retaining the claim may undermine California's statutory reforms and federal-state comity. The court did not yet dismiss the claim, instead ordering Plaintiff to show cause.
2. Plaintiff was ordered to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and submit declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff and her counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)-(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's ADA-based Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) because of exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas.
2. Whether Plaintiff must provide information concerning the statutory damages sought and facts relevant to the high-frequency-litigant definition under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1)-(2).

Disposition

other