Robert Mena v. Gluckstein Fountain Valley Plaza 2, L.P.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00242
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:25-cv-00242-FWS-JDE Date: February 11, 2025 Title: Robert Mena v. Gluckstein Fountain Valley Plaza 2, L.P., et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

The court is in receipt of the Complaint filed in this action, which asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, California’s Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq., California Health and Safety Code § 19955 et seq., and for negligence. (Dkt. 1.) The court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. 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 Chi. v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Given relevant authority on the court’s exercise of supplemental jurisdiction, including, but not limited to, 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 state law claims asserted in the Complaint on or before February 18, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 8:25-cv-00242-FWS-JDE Date: February 11, 2025 Title: Robert Mena v. Gluckstein Fountain Valley Plaza 2, L.P., et al. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice and without further notice. 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 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.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________________________________________________