• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
2 results

Latanya Williams v. Sanders Joseph Chase et al

Docket 2:24-cv-07024, California Central District Court (Aug. 19, 2024)
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, presiding, Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin
Civil Rights - Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
DivisionLos Angeles (Western Division)
FlagsACCO, (AJRx), DISCOVERY, MANADR
Cause42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act
Case Type446 Civil Rights - Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Tags446 Civil Rights, Americans With Disabilities Act, Other, 446 Civil Rights, Americans With Disabilities Act, Other
Plaintiff Latanya Williams
Defendant Sanders Joseph Chase
Defendant Does
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 11 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION by Judge Michael ...

Document Latanya Williams v. Sanders Joseph Chase et al, 2:24-cv-07024, No. 11 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 21, 2024)
Case No. CV 24-7024-MWF(AJRx) Title Latanya Williams v. Sanders Joseph Chase, et al.
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. §§ 12101-12213, a claim for damages pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal.
Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action ... .’” (quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
The Response to the Order to Show Cause shall include (1) the amount of statutory damages sought pursuant to the Unruh Act; and (2) sufficient facts for the Court to determine whether Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel meet the definition of a “high- frequency litigant” as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
Failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court’s declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search