From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. 257-261 Adams, LLC

United States District Court, Central District of California
Aug 31, 2022
CV 21-6457 DSF (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2022)

Opinion

CV 21-6457 DSF (ASx)

08-31-2022

GEORGE JONES, Plaintiff, v. 257-261 Adams, LLC, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DALE S. FISCHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The First Amended Complaint asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. It appears that the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Defendant asks the Court to decline jurisdiction; Plaintiff opposes that request. Neither party has adequately addressed the issue.

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) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Plaintiff is ordered to file a response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than September 12, 2022. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jones v. 257-261 Adams, LLC

United States District Court, Central District of California
Aug 31, 2022
CV 21-6457 DSF (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2022)
Case details for

Jones v. 257-261 Adams, LLC

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE JONES, Plaintiff, v. 257-261 Adams, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Aug 31, 2022

Citations

CV 21-6457 DSF (ASx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2022)