Mister Bailey v. 2153 W. Washington Blvd 13, LLC et al

Filing 11

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 11/4/2024. 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 USC section 1367(c). (jp)

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

2:24-cv-09133-RGK-SK

Title

MISTER BAILEY v. 2153 WASHINGTON BLVD 13, LLC, et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 24, 2024

GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Joseph Remigio (not present)

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

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
November 4, 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).
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

2:24-cv-09133-RGK-SK

Date

Title

MISTER BAILEY v. 2153 WASHINGTON BLVD 13, LLC, et al

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

October 24, 2024

JRE/vc

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2