Angel Garcia v. Montebello Autocraft, LLC et al

Filing 10

Order to Show Cause by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, by February 3, 2025, as to why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claims Plaintiff may have al leged, if any. 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 this 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 Procedur e Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal, without prejudice, of this entire case,or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and the other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California
Western Division

8
9
10
11
12

ANGEL GARCIA,

13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

CV 24-11048 TJH

Order to Show Cause

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MONTEBELLO AUTOCRAFT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
The Complaint filed in this case alleged a claim for injunctive relief for an
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213
["ADA"], and a claim for damages pursuant to California's Unruh Civil Rights Act,
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53 ["Unruh Act"]. 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, if any. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Section 1367 "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,

27

and comity.'" City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)

28

(emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350
Order to Show Cause – Page 1 of 2

1

(1988)).

2

Therefore, Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, by February 3, 2025, as to why

3

the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any

4

other state law claims Plaintiff may have alleged, if any. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

5

In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of

6

statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall, also,

7

support their responses to this Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under

8

penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they

9

satisfy the definition of a "high-frequency litigant," as provided by California Civil

10

Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2).

11

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may,

12

without further warning, result in the dismissal, without prejudice, of this entire case,

13

or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and the

14

other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of the state law claims pursuant to 28

15

U.S.C. § 1367(c).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Date: January 3, 2025

20

__________________________________

21

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order to Show Cause – Page 2 of 2