Raul Uriarte-Limon v. Castaneda Brake Motors Inc., et al.

Summary

The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws arising from an alleged ADA violation. The response must address the statutory damages sought and provide sworn facts concerning whether the plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law. The court warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal of the action or declination of supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including substantial concerns about federal-state comity in ADA-based Unruh Act litigation.
2. A federal court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of an action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and the other state-law claims.
2. Whether Plaintiff must provide the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and facts addressing whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Disposition

other