Luis Marquez v. Y & C Long Beach, LLC
2:20-cv-07972
C.D. Cal.Oct 28, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Luis Marquez sued under the ADA (federal injunctive relief) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (state-law damages).
- The Unruh Act claim appears to be before the Court only via supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367).
- The Court noted the supplemental-jurisdiction inquiry requires weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring plaintiff to explain why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and any other state-law claims.
- The Court ordered plaintiff to: (1) state the amount of statutory damages sought; and (2) submit declarations (under penalty of perjury) from plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel with all facts necessary for the Court to determine whether they qualify as a “high-frequency litigant” under California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
- Plaintiff was given a response deadline of November 4, 2020; failure to timely/adequately respond could lead to dismissal without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Marquez implicitly seeks the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction and adjudicate the Unruh Act claim together with the ADA claim | Not argued in the order (no response from defendants reflected) | Court ordered Marquez to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised and to file a written response by Nov 4, 2020 |
| Whether plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought | Marquez must disclose the amount sought (to inform jurisdictional exercise and potential remedies) | Not argued | Court requires plaintiff to identify the statutory damages amount in the response |
| Whether plaintiff and counsel are “high-frequency litigant(s)” under CCP § 425.55(b)(1) & (2) | Marquez must supply facts under penalty of perjury to allow the Court to determine high-frequency litigant status | Not argued | Court requires sworn declarations from plaintiff and counsel providing all facts necessary to determine high-frequency litigant status |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (factors and values to weigh when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (same; guidance on district courts’ discretion to retain or decline supplemental jurisdiction)