Skip to main content
S.D. California· 4/10/2017

Schutza v. Cuddeback

Citations

  • 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that plaintiff who had filed numerous ADA 20 actions in federal court was engaging in forum shopping “to avoid California’s heightened 21 pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims.”
  • holding that plaintiff who had filed numerous ADA 19 actions in federal court was engaging in forum shopping “to avoid California’s heightened 20 pleading requirements for disability discrimination claims.”
  • declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because (1) “Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Unruh Act substantially predominates over his federal claim” and, (2
  • declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. CV 23-05839-CJC (JCx) Date: August 17, 2023 Page 2 (1
  • declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction because UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. EDCV 23-01402-CJC (KKx) Date: August 17, 2023 Page 2 (1
  • relying on Hanna v. 19 Plummer, 380 U.S. 460, 467-68 (1965

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bashant, Hon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.