Garcia v. Maciel

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 3, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-03743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 21-cv-03743-JCS 6 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 7 v. COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL 8 JESUS GARCIA MACIEL, et al., JURISDICTION 9 Defendants. 10 On December 31, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter 11 |] jurisdiction. That motion primarily addresses standing and does not address supplemental 12 || jurisdiction. 13 In addition to addressing the arguments Defendants have raised, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia is 14 |} ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why, if the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction 3 15 || over Garcia’s federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Court should 16 || not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s state-law Unruh Act claim for the 17 || reasons stated in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021). Although that decision held that 18 || a district court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when the court 19 || had already determined the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on a parallel ADA claim, the Ninth 20 || Circuit had “little difficulty concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 21 concluding that the situation presented . . . involves ‘exceptional circumstances’” sufficient to 22 || decline supplemental jurisdiction if the issue had been raised at an earlier stage of the case. /d. at 23 1214. Accordingly, Garcia’s opposition brief, which is due January 13, 2022, must address why 24 || exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim is appropriate if any portion of the 25 || case survives Defendants’ motion. 26 IT ISSO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: January 3, 2022 6 Z2 CZ 28 é ief ‘Magistrate Tadge