Korttney Elliott v. Matis Beauty Salon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORTTNEY ELLIOTT, Case No. 2:25-cv-01730-SB-KES

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

MATI’S BEAUTY SALON et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Korttney Elliot, who suffers from hemiplegia, filed this suit alleging that Defendants failed to provide an accessible entrance, 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 her 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)…