Korttney Elliott v. Elizabeth M. Roldan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KORTTNEY ELLIOTT Case No. 2:24−cv−04811−WLH−KS Plaintiff(s), 12 v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ELIZABETH M. ROLDAN, et al. WHY THE COURT Defendant(s). SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER THE

STATE LAW CLAIMS 18 The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and 21 claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh 22 Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests the court 23 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 25 The United States Supreme Court has recognized supplemental jurisdiction 26 “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right, and that district courts can 27 The supplemental jurisdiction statute codifies these principles. After establishing that…