Joshua Cuevas v. Victor Backus and Co., LTD., 8:23-cv-00369

Case: Cuevas v. Victor Backus & Co., Ltd., filed in the Central District of California asserting an ADA claim for injunctive relief and related state-law claims (Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code §19955 et seq., and negligence).
The district court noted it has only supplemental jurisdiction over the asserted state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Citing principles that courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the court referenced Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority addressing that analysis.
The court specifically relied on recent Ninth Circuit decisions (Arroyo and Vo) that bear on supplemental-jurisdiction practice for ADA/Unruh-type claims.
The court issued an order to show cause (OSC) directing Cuevas to explain in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims by March 17, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.
The court warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of claims or the action under Rule 41(b) and its inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims	Cuevas must show the state claims are sufficiently related to the ADA claim and that factors (economy, convenience, fairness, comity) favor exercising jurisdiction	No defendant position in the record; no opposition presented — court must independently assess whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction	Court ordered Cuevas to show cause by March 17, 2023 why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised (OSC issued); decision deferred pending response
Effect of failing to comply with the OSC	Cuevas risks dismissal if he does not justify jurisdiction	No defendant position in the record	Court warned failure to comply may result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent/sua sponte dismissal authority

City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts should weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (discussing considerations for retaining or declining supplemental jurisdiction)
Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) (Ninth Circuit guidance on supplemental-jurisdiction questions in ADA/Unruh contexts)
Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022) (Ninth Circuit decision addressing supplemental jurisdiction and related procedural issues)
Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (federal courts may dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) ( Ninth Circuit recognizes sua sponte dismissal under certain circumstances )
Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493 (9th Cir. 1984) (court has inherent power to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution)