Opinion
5:22-cv-01827-SSS-KKx
10-27-2022
Leemanuel Weilch v. Kay Ann Yee, et al.
Present. The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES- GENERAL
Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DENY SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff Leemanuel Weilch filed his Complaint asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§§ 12182(a), 121282(b)(A)(i)-(iv), and 1283(a)(2); a claim for damages pursuant to California's Unruh Civil Rights Acts (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 52; a claim damages pursuant to California's Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.1(a)-(d); a claim for damages pursuant to the Unfair Competition Act, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and a claim for damages pursuant to a state law negligence theory. [Dkt. 1]. As the Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Business and Professions Code, and the negligence claims are all pursuant to state law, as opposed to a federal law, the Court would only possess supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (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 state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Weilch shall identify the statutory damages he seeks to recover. Weilch and his counsel shall also support their responses to this Order 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 §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Weilch shall file his response to this order no later than November 10, 2022. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.