Miguel Soto v. Baldemar R. Ancira et al

Filing 9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. The Response shall be filed on or before SEPTEMBER 29, 2022. 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 Courts 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. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 22-6526 MWF (MRWx)

Title

Miguel Soto v. Baldemar R. Ancira, et al.

Present: The Honorable:

Date: September 15, 2022

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge

Rita Sanchez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Not Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION

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. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights
Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53, and other state law claims alleged by
Plaintiff. The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). See also
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding district courts
may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because
of “very substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by plaintiffs’ use of
federal courts to evade California’s Unruh Act reforms).
This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter
jurisdiction. Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t
is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter
jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .’”
(quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW
CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 22-6526 MWF (MRWx)

Title

Miguel Soto v. Baldemar R. Ancira, et al.

Date: September 15, 2022

over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The
Response to the Order to Show Cause shall include (1) the amount of statutory
damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act; and (2) sufficient facts for the Court to
determine whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel meet the definition of a “highfrequency litigant” as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section
425.55(b)(1) & (2). These facts shall be set forth in declarations signed under
penalty of perjury.
The Response shall be filed on or before SEPTEMBER 29, 2022. 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’s
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.
Initials of Preparer: RS/sjm

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 2 of 2