Mister Bailey v. Marta Lidia Henriquez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws. The Court required information concerning the statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal or declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A federal court may raise and examine the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of an action.
2. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim when the circumstances identified by the statute warrant declining jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and the other state-law claims.
2. What information Plaintiff must provide to enable the court to evaluate supplemental jurisdiction, including the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other