Nelson Chilin v. 1 Stop Hardware, Inc. et al.

Summary

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 related state law claims. The order directs the plaintiff and counsel to submit responses and declarations addressing statutory damages and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff; even when § 1367(a) encompasses a state-law claim, a district court may decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c), including when exceptional circumstances or other compelling reasons exist.
2. California's heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency-litigant fee provisions are relevant to the fairness and comity analysis when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over construction-related Unruh Act claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information Plaintiff and counsel must provide for the court to evaluate the discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including the amount of statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.

Disposition

other