Omar Luna v. 7561 Woodman Place, LLC et al
Filing
11
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 12:00PM on 9/30/2024. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without fu rther warning, result in 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 section 1367(c). (jp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:24-cv-08095-RGK-MAA
Title
Omar Luna v. 7561 Woodman Place, LLC et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
September 23, 2024
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Joseph Remigio
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
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 12:00
PM on September 30, 2024. 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 and other state
law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (10/08)
JRE/sf
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?