Brian Whitaker v. Wolfgang O. Maike et al
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge R. Gary Klausner: Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than 10/9/2019. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c). (jp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
BRIAN WHITAKER v. WOLFGANG O. MAIKE, et al
October 4, 2019
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sharon Williams (not present)
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
IN CHAMBERS — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for
damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. It
appears that the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other
state law claim that plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a).
The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every
stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of
Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997)
(emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98
L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court
should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim
asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
In responding to this Order to Show Cause, plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory
damages plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to
the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts
necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as
provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Plaintiff shall file a
Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than October 9, 2019. Failure to timely or
adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of
the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?