Theresa Brooke v. Disney Way Hotel Partners LLC

Filing 20

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: The court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before 4/24/2023, at 5:00 PM. Failure to comply with the courts order may result in dismissal. (jp)

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:23-cv-00082-FWS-ADS
Title: Theresa Brooke v. Disney Way Hotel Partners LLC

Date: April 17, 2023

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The court observes that 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 et seq., and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights
Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-28.) The court further notes that it
possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim. 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)). Given this authority,
as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and
Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing
why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any
other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before April 24, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.
Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1 

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:23-cv-00082-FWS-ADS
Title: Theresa Brooke v. Disney Way Hotel Partners LLC

Date: April 17, 2023

dismiss a plaintiffs action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be
doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)
(“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”);
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court
to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).
The court also notes that Plaintiff has filed an Application to Stay Case and Early
Mediation, (Dkt. 17), which Defendant timely opposed, (Dkt. 18). The court declines to rule on
the pending Application to Stay until after Plaintiff responds to and the court rules on the Order
to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2