Moises Villalobos v. Laurel/Oxnard, LLC

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. The court directed the plaintiff and counsel to provide information concerning requested statutory damages and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, warning that inadequate or untimely responses could result in dismissal of the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a matter of a plaintiff's right, and a district court may decline to exercise it under the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including dismissal of all claims within original jurisdiction or exceptional circumstances presenting compelling reasons.
2. California's heightened pleading and high-frequency-litigant requirements, together with the state's interest in discouraging unverified disability-discrimination claims, may support declining supplemental jurisdiction based on fairness and comity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
2. What information Plaintiff and counsel must provide for the court to determine whether Plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other