Miriam Maldonado v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Miriam Maldonado to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims, including claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court cited California requirements applicable to high-frequency litigants and ordered Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and submit a supporting declaration by December 3, 2025; Defendants may respond by December 10, 2025.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that form part of the same Article III case or controversy is discretionary, and the court must consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.
2. Before deciding whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction, the court may require plaintiff to explain why the state-law claims should remain in federal court and to provide evidence relevant to plaintiff's status as a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims because California has imposed heightened pleading and fee requirements for construction-related accessibility claims brought by high-frequency litigants.
2. What information plaintiff must provide in response to the order to show cause concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.

Disposition

other