Case 5:22-cv-01800-SSS-SHK Document 10 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:47

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

Case 5:22-cv-01800-SSS-SHKx Date October 24, 2022 No. Title Marquise Bailey v. James M. Berardini

Present: The SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Honorable

Irene Vazquez 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 WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DENY SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff Marquise Bailey filed her Complaint asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§§ 12182(a), 121282(b)(A)(i)–(iv), and 1283(a)(2); a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Acts (“Unruh Act”),

; a claim damages pursuant to California’s Disabled Persons Act,

(a)–(d); a claim for damages pursuant to California Health & Safety Code §19955; and a claim for damages under a state negligence theory. [Dkt. 1]. As the Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health & Safety Code, and the negligence claims are all pursuant to state law, as opposed to a federal law, the Court would only possess supplemental jurisdiction over them. See

(a). CIVIL MINUTES— Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk iv GENERAL Case 5:22-cv-01800-SSS-SHK Document 10 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:48

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 College 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 state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See

(a). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Bailey shall identify the statutory damages she seeks to recover. Bailey and her counsel shall also support their responses to this Order with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Bailey shall file her response to this order no later than November 2, 2022. Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to

(a). IT IS SO ORDERED.

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