Lamar Myers v. Daniel E. Mendoza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMAR MYERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00519-SB-AS

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DANIEL E. MENDOZA et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Lamar Myers, who requires the use of a wheelchair at all times when traveling in public, filed this suit alleging that Defendants Daniel E. Mendoza’s and Antonio Jimenez’s facility imposes barriers that impede Plaintiff’s access, in violation of, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Act. Dkt. No. 1.

Because Plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is closely related to his ADA claim, the Court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 367(a). However, supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” and district courts “can decline to exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). This discretion is codified in Section 1367(c):

The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under…