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 claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The court directed the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and required the plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law. A response was due March 26, 2025, with failure to respond potentially resulting in dismissal of the action or state-law claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff should 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 to permit the court 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.’””
“Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).”
Factual background
The complaint alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeks injunctive relief. It also asserts a claim for damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order indicates that the federal court's jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims may be supplemental rather than original.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting an Americans with Disabilities Act 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 respond in writing, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants. The response was due March 26, 2025; no final dismissal or jurisdictional determination was made in this order.