Luz Zendejas v. 1 Stop Auto Repair Inc, 2:24-cv-07564

Plaintiff Luz Zendejas filed a lawsuit against 1 Stop Auto Repair Inc (d/b/a Saticoy Auto Center) and Astra Holding, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various California statutes.
The claims asserted include injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety Code provisions, and negligence.
Federal jurisdiction is claimed for the ADA claim, with state law claims joined under supplemental (pendent) jurisdiction.
California imposes heightened pleading requirements—particularly for "high-frequency litigants"—in construction-access cases under the Unruh Act.
The court issued an order for Zendejas to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, specifically requesting details relevant to high-frequency litigant status and the damages sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should federal court retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims?	Zendejas asserts supplemental jurisdiction is proper for state claims linked to ADA case.	Presumably challenges court retaining jurisdiction, relying on California's stricter procedures and policies.	Court orders plaintiff to show cause; no decision yet.
Adequacy of pleading as a high-frequency litigant	Plaintiff has not yet addressed; ordered to respond with relevant details.	Defendants likely assert noncompliance with California high-frequency litigant requirements.	Plaintiff required to provide detailed response.
Amount of statutory damages sought	Plaintiff has not yet specified; ordered to do so.	Defendants may contest the amount or entitlement.	Plaintiff must specify damages in response.
Application of stricter state procedural requirements	Plaintiff contends state claims are properly before the court.	Defendant invokes heightened state pleading standards.	Plaintiff must provide declarations under penalty of perjury.

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (guidance on discretionary supplemental jurisdiction and relevant considerations)
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (articulates factors federal courts weigh in exercising supplemental jurisdiction)