# Opinion

> District Court, C.D. California · October 7, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11173079

## Case

- **Full name:** Twyla Freeman v. None Present
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** October 7, 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/11173079

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11173079. Public record. Not legal advice.