John Lee v. Stadium Tavern, Inc. et al

Filing 13

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 thiscourt should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before 7/22/2024, at 5:00 PM. Failure to adequately comply with the courts order may result in dismissal of this actionwith prejudice and without further notice. (jp)

Download PDF
__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:24-cv-00979-FWS-DFM Title: John Lee v. Stadium Tavern, Inc. et al. Date: July 8, 2024 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 Defendants: 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 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq., California Health and Safety Code § 19955 et seq., and for 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 July 22, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:24-cv-00979-FWS-DFM Date: July 8, 2024 Title: John Lee v. Stadium Tavern, Inc. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?