Marquise Bailey v. Ulisses Solorio et al.

Summary

The Central District of California orders Plaintiff Marquise Bailey to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The order requires Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and counsel are high-frequency litigants under California law. It warns that failure to respond or an inadequate response may result in dismissal of the entire action or the state-law claims.

Holdings

1. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims even when supplemental jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), subject to the discretion granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. Plaintiff must show cause in writing within ten days why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction and must identify the statutory damages sought and submit declarations addressing whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel are high-frequency litigants.
3. Failure to respond to the order to show cause may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and an inadequate response will result in dismissal of the specified state-law claims under § 1367(c).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, California Health and Safety Code, and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
2. What information Plaintiff must provide to permit the court to evaluate the amount of statutory damages sought and whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel qualifies as a California high-frequency litigant.
3. Whether failure to comply with the order to show cause may support dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Disposition

other