Michael Rhambo v. Carbook Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL RHAMBO Case No. 2:25−cv−05484−WLH−BFM Plaintiff(s), 12 v. 13
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CARBOOK INC., et al. 14 WHY THE COURT Defendant(s). SHOULD 15 EXERCISE 16 SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTION OVER THE
17 STATE LAW CLAIMS 18 19 The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising 20 out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and 21 claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh 22 Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests the court 23 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 25 The United States Supreme Court has recognized supplemental jurisdiction 26 “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right, and that district courts can 27 2 The supplemental jurisdiction statute codifies these principles. After 3 establishing that supplemental…