Michael Rhambo v. Bernardino Perez

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 24, 20252:25-cv-00424California688 words

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)…

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.