Robert Mena v. Dana Shore Offices, Ltd.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Robert Mena to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims accompanying an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority concerning exceptional circumstances in ADA/Unruh Act litigation and required Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary, not a plaintiff's right, and a district court may decline to exercise it when one of the circumstances specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is present, including exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's California state-law claims accompanying his ADA claim.
2. Whether Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and provide facts establishing whether Plaintiff and counsel satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.

Disposition

other