Leemanuel Weilch v. Safari Restaurant Bar, et al.

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 court also required the plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and required the plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations addressing whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California law. A response was due by January 20, 2026, with failure to respond potentially resulting in dismissal without prejudice or declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claim asserted in the complaint.
2. The court required plaintiff to identify the amount of statutory damages sought and required plaintiff and counsel to submit declarations under penalty of perjury containing facts necessary to determine whether they satisfy California's definition of a high-frequency litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff must show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and any other state-law claims.
2. What information plaintiff and counsel must provide to permit the court to evaluate the requested statutory damages and whether they qualify as high-frequency litigants under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) and (2).

Disposition

other