Twyla Freeman v. None Present

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. EDCV 25-02491-KK-DTBx Date: October 7, 2025 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Twyla Freeman Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Supplemental Jurisdiction The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). It appears the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim(s) asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

Plaintiff is, therefore, ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE at an in-person hearing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff shall appear before the Court for a hearing on October 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 on the 3rd Floor of the George E. Brown, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, located at 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501. At the hearing, Plaintiff shall identify the specific amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Additionally, no later than October 16, 2025, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall file declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of “high-frequency litigant” as provided by Sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff is expressly warned that failure to comply with this Order will result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.