Michael Rhambo v. Thomas Alan Kerr et al.

Summary

The Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Michael Rhambo to show cause why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The order relies on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity in ADA-based Unruh Act claims, and requires Plaintiff to disclose the statutory damages sought and provide information relevant to high-frequency-litigant status.

Holdings

1. Because the Unruh Act claim is closely related to the ADA claim, the court has authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.
2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), the federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas may constitute exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim, particularly when the case remains at an early stage and the state claim has not been adjudicated.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's closely related Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Whether exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), including the federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas, justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim at this early stage.

Disposition

other