Yuri Doering v. Jose M. Castro et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order focuses on California’s heightened pleading and filing requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and high-frequency litigants. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether the plaintiff and counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants, with failure to respond potentially resulting in dismissal without prejudice.

Holdings

1. Because the complaint combines a federal ADA claim with related state-law claims, the court may evaluate whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and may order Plaintiff to show cause on that issue.
2. Plaintiff must respond in writing within ten days, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and submit declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel addressing facts necessary to determine whether either is a high-frequency litigant.
3. Failure to respond, or an inadequate response, may result in dismissal without prejudice, including dismissal of the state-law claims for lack of continued supplemental jurisdiction and potentially dismissal of the entire action under Rule 41(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should require Plaintiff to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims.
2. What information Plaintiff must provide concerning the amount of statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel is a high-frequency litigant.
3. Whether failure to comply with the order could support dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Disposition

other