Garcia v. Sun-Hayward, LLC

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 4:21-cv-08574-YGR 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 8 v. 9 SUN-HAYWARD, LLC 10 Defendant.

11 A federal court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in || exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of 13 || discretion, not of plaintiff's right.” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 |} (1966). When a “high-frequency” litigant such as plaintiff asserts a California Unruh Act claim in 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, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211-14 (9th Cir. 17 || 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JC, 2022 WL 395316 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). In || light of the foregoing, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not || decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim given the infancy of this || case.

21 Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order to show cause no later than May 26, || 2022. Failure to respond in writing will result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with || prejudice.

24 IT Is SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: May 17, 2022 27 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE