CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 20-00075JVS(ADSx) Date May 4, 2020 Title Brian Whitaker v GZHB LLC, et al

Present: The James V. Selna, US District Court Judge Honorable Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION The Court ORDERS plaintiff(s), to Show Cause (OSC) in writing no later than May 22, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution as to the defendant. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: X Plaintiff's filing of a motion for entry of default judgment Absent a showing of good cause, an action shall be dismissed if the summons and complaint have not been served upon all defendants within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) The Court may dismiss the action prior to the expiration of such time, however, if plaintiff(s) has/have not diligently prosecuted the action.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to respond promptly to all orders and to prosecute the action diligently, including filing proofs of service and stipulations extending time under Rule 55 remedies promptly upon default of any defendant. All stipulations affecting the progress of the case must be approved by the Court. Local Rule 7-1 The Scheduling Conference set for May 11, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. is ordered VACATED. On January 28, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause why the Court should not decline to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the state claims (

). (Docket No. 9.) Plaintiff responded. (Docket No. 13. ) CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SACV 20-00075JVS(ADSx) Date May 4, 2020 Title Brian Whitaker v GZHB LLC, et al Pursuant to

(c)(4), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in light of California’s recent legislation regulating the filing of claims under California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. which evidences a special state interest in such cases. The Court adopts the reasoning in Schutza v. Cuddeback,

(S.D. Cal. 2017), and Arroyo v. Kazamo, LLC, Case No. CV 19-2720 PA (MRWx), Central District of California, Aug. 5, 2019. The Court stays these claims pending the disposition of the Ninth Circuit appeals in Schutza and Arroyo. Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

(1936). The stay does not bar any party from moving for equitable relief or complying with the Court’s orders regarding site inspections and settlement procedures. Initials of Preparer lmb