Theresa Brooke v. Carpinteria Motor Inn, Inc.

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 claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and any other state-law claims. The order also requires identification of the statutory damages sought and declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law, with a response due June 13, 2025.

Holdings

1. Because the complaint appeared to present a federal ADA claim and state-law claims over which the court possessed only supplemental jurisdiction, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted.
2. Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought and plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel must submit declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether plaintiff satisfies California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should show cause why the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims.
2. What information plaintiff must provide to permit the court to evaluate supplemental jurisdiction and the statutory high-frequency-litigant provisions.

Disposition

other