Joshua Cuevas v. Christian Gonzalez et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than two weeks from the date of this Order. 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 that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

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

2:24-cv-09225-ODW (ASx)

Title

Joshua Cuevas v. Christian Gonzales et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 29, 2024

Otis D. Wright II, United States District Judge

Sheila English

Not reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present

Not present

Proceedings (In Chambers):
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 (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 Code of Civil Procedure
sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

no later than two weeks from the date of this Order. 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 that claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

SE

Page 2 of 2