Michael Rhambo v. Dipakkumar T. Patel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL RHAMBO No. 2:25-cv-05783-JAK (AGR) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 12 SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION v. OVER STATE-LAW CLAIMS 13 Dipakkumar T. Patel, et al. 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Based on a review of the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the following determinations are 18 made: 19 The Complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 20 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. 21 Civ. Code §§ 51–55 and other provisions of California law Supplemental jurisdiction is 22 the basis for the state-law claims. Dkt. 1 ¶ 7. 23 District courts may exercise “supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that 24 are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part 25 of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 26 U.S.C. § 1367(a). This “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s…