Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 25-02491-KK-DTBx Date: October 7, 2025

Title:

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

Twyla Freeman 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 at an in-person hearing 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 23,

2025, at 10:00 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. Additionally, no later than October 16, 2025, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel

shall 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 that failure to comply with this Order will result in this

action being dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.