Robert Cauley v. Hong Kong Garden Incorporated

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff Robert Cauley to show cause why his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning federal-state comity and California's regulation of high-frequency litigants, the Court states that declining supplemental jurisdiction appears appropriate because the case remains at an early stage. The Court directs Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide sworn declarations addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. Because Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a plaintiff's right, and the circumstances described in Arroyo v. Rosas may constitute exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) justifying declining jurisdiction over an ADA-based Unruh Act claim.
3. The court did not yet dismiss the Unruh Act claim; instead, it ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days why the claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under § 1367(c)(4), with automatic dismissal without prejudice if Plaintiff failed to respond.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Unruh Act claim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction because it is closely related to the ADA claim.
2. Whether exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), including the federal-state comity concerns identified in Arroyo v. Rosas, appear to justify declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim at this early stage of the litigation.
3. What response and factual information Plaintiff must provide before the court decides whether to dismiss the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.

Disposition

other