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

Joshua Cuevas v. Victor Backus and Co., LTD.

8:23-cv-00369

C.D. Cal.

Mar 6, 2023

Check Treatment

Docket

Joshua Cuevas v. Victor Backus & Co., Ltd. et al.

Case No.: 8:23-cv-00369-FWS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

March 6, 2023

HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig, Deputy Clerk; N/A, Court Reporter

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Not Present

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The court observes that 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”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010 et seq., and several state law claims for damages based on violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53; violation of the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.; violation of California Health and Safety Code, § 19955 et seq; and negligence. (See Dkt. 1. ¶¶ 32-51.) The court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff‘s state law claims. 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, 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)). Given this authority, as well as the Ninth Circuit‘s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before March 17, 2023, at 5:00 p.m.

Failure to comply with the court‘s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiffs action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.“); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.“); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.“).

IT IS SO ORDERED

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

Read the detailed case summary