Dennis Cooper v. Grand View Property, LLC et al

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/30/2022. (twdb)

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

EDCV 22-1973 JGB (SHKx)

Date November 17, 2022

Title Dennis Cooper v. Grand View Property, LLC et al.
Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order to Show Cause (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”) and a claim for damages
pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), among other state-law claims.
(See “Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) 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)). Therefore, the
Court 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 (“OSC”), Plaintiff shall identify the amount
of statutory damages that Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also
support their responses to the OSC 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)-(b)(2). Plaintiff
shall file a Response to this OSC no later than Wednesday, November 30, 2022.
Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk mg

Failure to timely or adequately respond to this OSC 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.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk mg