Sam Benford v. The Sherwin-Williams Company et al

Filing 10

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re Supplemental Jurisdiction by Judge Fred W. Slaughter: the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before 11/20/2023, at 5:00 PM. (jp)

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:23-cv-02033-FWS-ADS
Title: Sam Benford v. The Sherwin-Williams Company et al.

Date: November 13, 2023

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa H. Kunig
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
The court is in receipt of the Complaint filed in this action, which asserts claims for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., violation
of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-52, violation of the
California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq., violation of California Health and
Safety Code § 1955 et seq., and negligence. (Dkt. 1.) The court observes that it possesses only
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 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)). Given
relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including but not limited
to 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 state law claims asserted in the
Complaint on or before November 20, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

1

__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:23-cv-02033-FWS-ADS
Date: November 13, 2023
Title: Sam Benford v. The Sherwin-Williams Company et al.
Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal of this action
with prejudice and without further notice. 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 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.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

2