1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 4:22-cv-00913-YGR 6 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

g CHICKEN 4 U, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 19

9 Defendant. 10 TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD: 11 Plaintiff Orlando Garcia has filed a notice that his claim for injunctive relief under the 12 || ADA has been rendered moot. (Dkt. No. 32.) Since injunctive relief is the only remedy available 13 || under the ADA, plaintiffs entire ADA claim is now moot and is dismissed. 14 All that remains in this case is plaintiffs Unruh Act claim. Courts decline to exercise 3 15 || supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims after the parallel ADA claim has been dismissed. 16 || Additionally, when a “high-frequency” litigant such as Garcia asserts an Unruh Act claim in i 17 || federal court with an ADA claim, this constitutes an exceptional circumstance that justifies Z 18 || dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021); 19 || Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JC,

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). Therefore, 20 || plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to respond in writing within seven (7) days of this order, how this 21 case would further “the interest of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity” to justify 22 || the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. See Smith v. Lenches,

(9th Cir. 23 |} 2001). Failure to timely respond will result in the dismissal of plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, and by 24 extension, this action. 25 IT Is SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: September 14, 2022 plu Hag lec = () VONNE GONGMLEZROGERS Q 28 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE