Julio Cruz v. Walter Jayasinghe
Filing
9
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 11/1/2024, at 5:00 PM. Failure to adequately comply with the courts order may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice and without further notice. (jp)
__________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:24-cv-02282-FWS-DFM
Title: Julio Cruz v. Walter Jayasinghe et al.
Date: October 24, 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 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 1, 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-02282-FWS-DFM
Date: October 24, 2024
Title: Julio Cruz v. Walter Jayasinghe 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.
____________________________________________________________________________
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?