1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ANDRES GOMEZ, Case No. 4:21-cv-07852-YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE g v. 9 ZACKERY SPEROW, 10 Defendant. 11 A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in 12 || exceptional circumstances.”

(c)(4). Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of 5 13 || discretion, not of plaintiff's right.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs,

, 726 14 || (1966). When a “high-frequency” litigant such as plaintiff asserts a California Unruh Act claim in 3 15 || federal court with an ADA claim, this typically constitutes an exceptional circumstance that a 16 || justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 3 17 || 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JC,

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). In 18 || light of the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not 19 || decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim given the infancy of this 20 || case. 21 Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause no later than May 26, 22 || 2022. Failure to respond in writing will result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with 23 || prejudice. 24 IT Is SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 12, 2022

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28