Sam Benford v. Carlos Albert Rosales, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Sam Benford to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other state laws. The court required information concerning the statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

Holdings

1. The court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction and may raise the jurisdictional issue at any time while the action is pending.
2. The court required plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and indicated that it may decline jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and other state-law claims.
2. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including in light of the federalism and comity concerns associated with ADA-based Unruh Act claims.
3. Whether plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel meets the definition of a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) or (2).

Disposition

other