Case 8:21-cv-00503-JGB-PVC Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:417

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. SACV 21-503 JGB (PVCx) Date October 5, 2022 Title Orlando Garcia v. Garr Properties, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause re (1) Supplemental Jurisdiction and (2) Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution (IN CHAMBERS)

I. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, among other state law claims. It appears that the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state law claim that Plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seek to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high- Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk NP Case 8:21-cv-00503-JGB-PVC Document 25 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:418

frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than October 17, 2022. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

II. DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

Over one year ago, on August 17, 2021, Defendant Garr Properties, Inc. filed an Answer. (Dkt. No. 23.) Since then, there has been virtually no activity in this case.

Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A plaintiff must prosecute his case with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Here, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case with reasonable diligence because his case has laid dormant for over a year.

Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than October 17, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk NP