1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 4:22-cv-00913-YGR 6 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

g PHo HANot, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 24

9 Defendant. 10 TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD: 11 Plaintiff has filed a notice that his claim for injunctive relief under the ADA has been 12 || rendered moot. (Dkt. No. 24.) Since injunctive relief is the only remedy available under the 13 || ADA, plaintiff's entire ADA claim is now moot and is dismissed. 14 All that remains in this case is plaintiffs Unruh Act claim. Courts decline to exercise 3 15 || supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims after the parallel ADA claim has been dismissed. 16 || Additionally, when a “high-frequency” litigant such as Johnson asserts an Unruh Act claim in i 17 || federal court with an ADA claim, this constitutes an exceptional circumstance that justifies Z 18 || dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-14 (9th Cir. 2021); 19 || Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JC, 2022 WL 395316 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Therefore, 20 || plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to respond in writing within seven (7) days of this order, how this 21 case would further “the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity” to justify 22 || the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 977 (9th Cir. 23 |} 2001). Failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal of plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, and by 24 extension, this action. 25 IT Is SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 28, 2022 f, (} VONNE GoNgaLEtRocERSO 28 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE