Michael Rhambo v. Bernardino Perez
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL RHAMBO, Case No. 2:25-cv-00424-SB-MAR
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
BERNARDINO PEREZ et al.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Michael Rhambo, who suffers from paraplegia, filed this suit alleging that Defendants failed to provide adequate parking facilities, in violation of, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Dkt. No. 1.
Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his 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 courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2)…