Raul Uriarte-Limon v. Quinn Enterprises, LLC et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Supplemental Jurisdiction by Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. Plaintiff's response shall be filed no later than seven days from the date of this Order. (See document for further information). (aco)

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

EDCV 24-2045-KK-SHKx

Date: September 26, 2024

Title: Uriarte-Limon v. Quinn Enterprises, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Noe Ponce

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Supplemental
Jurisdiction

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”). It appears the Court possesses only
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim(s) asserted in the Complaint. 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)). Plaintiff is, therefore,
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Plaintiff’s response shall be filed no later than seven days from the date of this Order. In
the response, Plaintiff shall identify the specific amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to
recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also file declarations, signed under penalty of perjury,
providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of “highfrequency litigant” as provided by Sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2) of the California Code of Civil
Procedure.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP

Plaintiff is expressly warned failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to
Show Cause may, without further warning, result in this action being dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), or
the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims
and the dismissal of such claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk NP