Case 5:22-cv-00953-JGB-SP Document 10 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 22-953 JGB (SPx) Date October 5, 2022 Title Korttney Elliott v. Morgan Capital investments Group LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ 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 re (1) Supplemental Jurisdiction and (2) Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution (IN CHAMBERS)

I. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

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”),

, a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”),

, among other state law claims. It appears that the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state law claim that Plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See

(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 Coll. of Surgeons,

,

,

(1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

,

,

(1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See

(c).

In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seek to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high- Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk NP Case 5:22-cv-00953-JGB-SP Document 10 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:36

frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause no later than October 17, 2022. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of any such claims pursuant to

(c).

II. DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 21 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). Fed R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1).

In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing on or before October 17, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by the plaintiff is due.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk NP