Robert Mena v. Dos Amigos Cantina HB, LP, et al.

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 state-law disability-access and negligence claims. The order discusses California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for Unruh Act claims, as well as considerations of fairness and comity under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing high-frequency litigant status by March 3, 2025.

Holdings

1. The court determined that it appeared to have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims, but did not make a final decision whether to exercise that jurisdiction.
2. Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response by March 3, 2025 explaining why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, identifying the amount of statutory damages sought, and providing declarations under penalty of perjury addressing whether plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. Whether plaintiff must provide information and declarations concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and whether plaintiff qualifies as a California high-frequency litigant before the court decides whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

other