Quy Truong v. RH-Lambert Brea Associates, L.P.

Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 8:22-cv-01050-FWS Date: April 13, 2023 Title: Theresa Brooke v. Disney Way Hotel Partners LLC Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE The court observes that 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”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010 et seq., and a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-28.) The court further notes that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Unruh claim. 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, 118 S. Ct. 523, 534, 139 L. Ed. 2d 525 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S. Ct. 614, 619, 98 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1988)). Given this authority, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021) and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint on or before April 20, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. Failure to comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-001050-FWS Date: April 13, 2023 Title: Theresa Brooke v. Disney Way Hotel Partners LLC

dismiss a plaintiffs action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 693, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”). The court also notes that Plaintiff has filed an Application to Stay Case and Early Mediation, (Dkt. 17), which Defendant timely opposed, (Dkt. 18). The court declines to rule on the pending Application to Stay until after Plaintiff responds to and the court rules on this Order to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku