1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 4:22-cv-00131-YGR

7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION 8

Re: Dkt. No. 32 9 C.N. KHOV, INC., Defendant. 10

11 TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD: 12 Plaintiff Orlando Garcia has filed a notice that his claim for injunctive relief under the 13 ADA has been rendered moot. (Dkt. No. 32.) Since injunctive relief is the only remedy available 14 under the ADA, plaintiff’s entire ADA claim is now moot and is dismissed. 15 All that remains in this case is plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. Courts decline to exercise 16 supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims after the parallel ADA claim has been dismissed. 17 Additionally, when a “high-frequency” litigant such as Garcia asserts an Unruh Act claim in 18 federal court with an ADA claim, this constitutes an exceptional circumstance that justifies 19 dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021); 20 Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JC,

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Therefore, 21 plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to respond in writing no later than August 26, 2022, how this case 22 would further “the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity” to justify the 23 exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See Smith v. Lenches,

(9th Cir. 2001). 24 Failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal of plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 19, 2022 ______________________________________ 27 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS