Kenneth Davidson v. Socal Distro LLC
2:24-cv-08037
C.D. Cal.
Sep 23, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Kevin L. Giles filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff William Federspiel, Lieutenant Ebony Rasco, and Tiggs Canteen Food Service, claiming violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights [lines="17-23"].
  2. Giles issued a subpoena requesting jail inspection records and fines from January 2014 to July 2024, which the defendants did not respond to [lines="36-38"].
  3. The defendants previously objected to a similar request, asserting it was overbroad and not relevant to the case [lines="49-54"].
  4. Before filing for sanctions, Giles did not file a motion to compel regarding the first subpoena, nor did he wait for the court to rule on the objection [lines="82-86"].
  5. As of the date of the motion for sanctions, discovery was stayed pending the resolution of the defendants' dispositive motions [lines="31-32"], [lines="91"].

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants failed to cooperate in discovery to the extent that warrants sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 [lines="64-73"].
  2. Whether Giles was prejudiced by the defendants' failure to respond to the subpoena [lines="89-90"].

Holdings

  1. The court found that Giles had not demonstrated the defendants acted willfully or in bad faith regarding discovery noncompliance, thus sanctions were not warranted [lines="78-88"].
  2. The court concluded that Giles was not prejudiced by the lack of response to his subpoena, given the current stay of discovery [lines="90-99"].

OPINION

Kenneth Davidson v. Socal Distro LLC, et al.

Case No. CV 24-8037-MWF(JCx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

September 23, 2024

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Present: The Honorable: MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, United States District Judge

Rita SanchezNot Reported
Deputy ClerkCourt Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not PresentNot Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 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“), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act“), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–53, and other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The sole basis for jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim is supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The Court, however, may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons delineated in § 1367(c). See also (holding district courts may decline supplemental jurisdiction over ADA-based Unruh Act claims because of “very substantial threat to federal-state comity” presented by plaintiffs’ use of federal courts to evade California‘s Unruh Act reforms).

This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter jurisdiction. (“[I]t is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .‘” (quoting )).

Therefore, to assist this Court in its duty, Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the other state law claims alleged by Plaintiff. The Response to the Order to Show Cause shall include (1) the amount of statutory damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act; and (2) sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff‘s counsel meet the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) & (2). These facts shall be set forth in declarations signed under penalty of perjury.

The Response shall be filed on or before OCTOBER 7, 2024. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court‘s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD

United States District Judge

Read the detailed case summary