Lamar Myers v. Cocina Dona Chona, Inc et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE LAW CLAIM by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within fourteen (14) days of this order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in either the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 USC 1367(c). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

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

CV 23-09450-SPG-MAR

Title

Lamar Myers v. Cocina Dona Chona, Inc. et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 13, 2023

SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Patricia Gomez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceeding:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT
SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
STATE LAW CLAIM

The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out
of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights
Act (the “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 Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,
522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350 (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).
Page 1 of 2

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

CV 23-09450-SPG-MAR

Date

Title

Lamar Myers v. Cocina Dona Chona, Inc. et al

November 13, 2023

Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within fourteen
(14) days of this order. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show
Cause may, without further warning, result in either the dismissal of the entire action
without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims
pursuant to 28 USC § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

PG

Page 2 of 2