UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—

GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-01448-SSS-RAOx Date July 31, 2023 Title Korttney Elliott v. Saul S. Flores, et al.

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez 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 WHY THE COURT SHOULD

NOT DENY SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Korttney Elliott filed her Complaint asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Acts (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52; a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.1(a)–(d); a claim for damages pursuant to the California Health & Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; and a claim for damages pursuant to a state law negligence theory. [Dkt. 1]. As the Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health & Safety Code, and the negligence claims are all pursuant to state law, as opposed to a federal law, the Court would only possess supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting

CIVIL MINUTES—

Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore ORDERS Elliott to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Elliott shall identify the statutory damages she seeks to recover. Elliott and her counsel shall also support their responses to this Order with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Elliott shall file his response to this order no later than August 11, 2023. The Court further sets a hearing regarding this Order to Show Cause on August 18, 2023, at 1:00 PM via Zoom.1 Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Court refers the Parties to Judge Sykes’ website for details regarding hearings via zoom: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-sunshine-s-sykes.

CIVIL MINUTES—