1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-07707-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 SUTRO SHOES, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 An initial case management conference is scheduled for noon on March 3, 2022. The Court 14 advanced the conference after receiving the parties’ stipulation, filed on February 24, 2022, 15 requesting that the Court extend the January 16, 2022 joint site inspection deadline. Dkt. No. 17. 16 The Court denied that stipulation because the parties apparently ignored the court-imposed deadline, 17 did not seek timely relief from that deadline, and did not demonstrate good cause for doing so. 18 The parties’ February 24, 2022 stipulation and February 28, 2022 joint case management 19 conference statement indicate that they are exploring settlement. 20 The Court sua sponte takes judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff Brian Whitaker is a high- 21 frequency plaintiff who resides in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW 22 CAUSE in writing by 3 p.m. on March 2, 2022 why, if this case does not settle, the Court 23 should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker’s state-law Unruh Act 24 claim for the reasons stated in Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). Although that 25 decision held that a district court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim 26 when the court had already determined the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on a parallel ADA 27 claim, the Ninth Circuit had “little difficulty concluding that the district court did not abuse its 1 sufficient to decline supplemental jurisdiction if the issue had been raised at an earlier stage of the 2 || case.

. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. delat 6 Dated: March 1, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28