Nelson Chilin v. 25557 Baseline LLC

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 11, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-01269
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES— GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-01269-SSS-AFMx Date July 11, 2023 Title Nelson Chilin v. 25557 Baseline, LLC, et al.

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DENY SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff Nelson Chilin filed his Complaint asserting a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a); a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Acts (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51–52; a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.1(a)–(d); a claim for damages pursuant to the California Health & Safety Code § 19955, et seq.; and a claim for damages pursuant to a state law negligence theory. [Dkt. 1]. As the Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Health & Safety Code, and the negligence claims are all pursuant to state law, as opposed to a federal law, the Court would only possess supplemental jurisdiction over them. 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 College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting CIVIL MINUTES— Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore ORDERS Chilin to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Chilin shall identify the statutory damages he seeks to recover. Chilin and his counsel shall also support their responses to this Order with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). Chilin shall file his response to this order no later than July 28, 2023. The Court further sets a hearing regarding this Order to Show Cause on August 4, 2023, at 1:00 PM via Zoom.1 Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 The Court refers the Parties to Judge Sykes’ website for details regarding hearings via zoom: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable-sunshine-s-sykes. CIVIL MINUTES—