United African-Asian Abilities Club v. Hunt Eexcel Limited Partnership

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 20252:25-cv-00497California720 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED AFRICAN-ASIAN Case No. 2:25-cv-00497-SB-SSC ABILITIES CLUB et al.,

Plaintiffs,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

HUNT / EEXCEL LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs United African-Asian Abilities Club and its member James Lee (who has a vision disability and uses a device for mobility because he is unable to walk) filed this suit alleging that physical and communication barriers at Defendant’s property and website prevent Lee’s access, in violation of, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Dkt. No. 1.

Because Plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claim is closely related to their ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This discretion is codified in § 1367(c):

The district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.