Summary
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 discretionary jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions, and directs the plaintiff and counsel to provide declarations and identify the statutory damages sought.
Holdings
- The court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and required plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise that jurisdiction here.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any related state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- What information plaintiff and counsel must provide for the court to evaluate whether fairness and comity weigh against exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- City of Chi. v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
- Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2017)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…