Jamie Torres v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:24-cv-11228-MEMF-AS 11 JAMIE TORRES,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO

13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S

14 STATE LAW CLAIMS ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and 15 DOES 1-10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20 On December 31, 2024, Jamie Torres filed a Comp laint against Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, Inc. 21 and Does 1-10, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 22 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; and (2) a claim for damages 23 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq. ECF No. 24 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 §§ 1331 and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “[p]ursuant to supplemental 26 jurisdiction.” Id. at ¶¶ 7–8. 27 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have…