# Dennis Cooper v. Selhodra Sumen

> District Court, C.D. California · September 29, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11168019

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Kenly Kiya Kato
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** September 29, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11168019

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 25-2424-KK-RAOx Date: September 29, 2025
Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Noe Ponce Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Supplemental
Jurisdiction

The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and a claim for damages pursuant to
California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). It appears the Court possesses only
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim(s) asserted in the Complaint. 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)). Plaintiff is, therefore,
ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Plaintiff shall appear before the Court for a hearing on October 7, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.
in Courtroom 3 on the 3rd Floor of the George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United
States Courthouse, located at 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501. At the hearing,
Plaintiff shall identify the specific amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. No later
than October 3, 2025, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also file declarations, signed under
penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the
definition of “high-frequency litigant” as provided by Sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2) of the California
Code of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff is expressly warned failure to file timely written responses or appear at the
hearing on the Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in this action
being dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11168019. Public record. Not legal advice.