Theresa Brooke v. Camarillo Motels LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders the plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and related state law. The order discusses 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), California’s efforts to address disability-access litigation, and decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over certain construction-access claims. Plaintiff must identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction is a discretionary doctrine rather than a plaintiff's right, and a district court may decline jurisdiction over a related state-law claim under the circumstances identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any related state-law claims.
2. What information Plaintiff and counsel must provide to permit the court to evaluate whether declining supplemental jurisdiction is warranted, including the amount of statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.

Disposition

other