Anthony Bouyer v. Fahmy Mushmel

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 20202:20-cv-00337California652 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-337-DMG (MAAx) Date January 21, 2020

Title Anthony Bouyer v. Fahmy Mushmel, et al. Page 1 of 2

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT

SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIM

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. sections 12010- 12213, and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code sections 51-53. It appears that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. section 1367(a).

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.