1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 21-cv-08584-JCS

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 10 RAMESH SOOD, et al., UNRUH ACT CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Defendants. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 27

12 I. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 13 On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed an administrative motion under Civil Local 14 Rule 7-11 for an order requiring Defendants to provide three dates of availability for a settlement 15 meeting under paragraph 8 of General Order 56, and awarding Garcia his attorneys’ fees for 16 bringing this motion after Defendants failed to respond to a request for the settlement meeting. 17 Local Rule 7-11 provides for an expedited schedule and perfunctory briefing of “miscellaneous 18 administrative matters, not otherwise governed by a federal statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or 19 standing order . . . such as motions to exceed otherwise applicable page limitations or motions to 20 file documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 7-11. Garcia’s request does not fall within that scope, at the 21 very least with respect to his request for monetary sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 7-8 (requiring motions 22 for sanctions to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-2). The administrative motion is therefore 23 DENIED without prejudice to bringing a noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2, after the 24 order to show cause below is resolved. 25 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 26 Garcia brings a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and, 27 invoking the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction under

, a state law claim under 1 California’s procedural rules for disability access cases brought by frequent plaintiffs like Garcia 2 || constitute exceptional circumstances that may be sufficient to decline supplemental jurisdiction. 3 See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). This Court has previously held that 4 || the reasoning of Arroyo warrants declining jurisdiction in a typical case where a high-frequency 5 || litigant has brought parallel ADA and Unruh Act claims and no decision has yet been reached on 6 the merits of either claim. See generally Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS,

395316 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Garcia is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the 8 Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim for the 9 || reasons stated in Garcia v. Maciel, by filing a response to this order no later than July 20, 2022. 10 || Defendants may file an optional response supporting or opposing the exercise of supplemental 11 || jurisdiction by the same deadline. 12 All other deadlines are STAYED pending the resolution of that issue. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: July 6, 2022 lo CL JQSEPH C. SPERO = 16 ief Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28