Jeremy Holland v. Jesse J. Espinoza, d/b/a Juniors Test Only; and Does 1 to 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:25-cv-08901-MEMF-RAO 11 JEREMY HOLLAND,

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 JESSE J. ESIPINOZA, d/b/a JUNIORS TEST 15 ONLY; and DOES 1 to 10,

16 Defendants.

17

18

19

20 On July 27, 2025, Plaintiff Jeremy Holland (“Holland”) filed a Complaint against Defendant

21 Jesse J. Espinoza, d/b/a Juniors Test Only (“JTO”), asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising 22 out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010– 23 12213; and (2) a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), 24 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52, et seq. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction 25 over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 12188. Id. ¶ 3. 26 Principles of pendent jurisdiction…