Colton Bryant v. Emilio Loza, et al.
Case No. 2:21-cv-08018-RGK-AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 28, 2021
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
| Sharon L. Williams | Not Reported | N/A |
| Deputy Clerk | Court Reporter / Recorder | Tape No. |
| Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: | Attorneys Present for Defendants: |
| Not Present | Not Present |
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause
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“),
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, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See
In responding to this Order to Show Cause, plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and plaintiff‘s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer