Summary
The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Theresa Brooke 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
- A federal court may raise and examine the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time while the action is pending.
- The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including substantial federal-state comity concerns implicated by ADA-based Unruh Act claims.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and the other state-law claims.
- Whether Plaintiff must provide information concerning the amount of Unruh Act statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or counsel qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-14 (9th Cir. 2021)(followed)
- Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…