Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dena Peterson sued Daniel Preszler in the Central District of California. According to the court's minute order, the complaint asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., along with state law claims under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, and Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq., and a negligence claim. The order does not describe the underlying facts, the relief sought, or whether the defendant has appeared. Those claims are the plaintiff's allegations, and nothing has been found.
On October 28, 2026, the court issued an in-chambers order on its own initiative, recorded at Docket 10. No hearing was held, and the minute entry lists no attorneys present for either side. The court stated that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The order does not expressly explain the basis for federal jurisdiction over the ADA claim, though its framing treats the federal claim as the anchor for the case.
The court relied on City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which describes supplemental jurisdiction as calling for a federal court to weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in each case and at every stage of the litigation. The court also pointed 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), as relevant authority, saying its list was not limited to those cases. The order does not summarize either decision.
The Court’s Holding
This is a procedural order, not a ruling on the merits or on whether the court will keep the state law claims. The court ordered Peterson to show cause in writing why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, with the response due on or before November 4, 2026. The order sets no page limit and does not say what showing would be sufficient.
The order also warns that failure to adequately comply may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice and without further notice. For that warning, the court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and three decisions on a court's authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute: Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); and Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). A warning of this kind describes a possible consequence, not a judgment. No claim has been dismissed.
Several matters remain open. The order does not identify any subsection of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) as a ground for declining jurisdiction, does not say whether the court is inclined to decline, and does not address what would happen to the state law claims if it did. Whether Peterson responded, and how the court ruled, is not shown in the materials provided.
Key Takeaways
- The October 28, 2026 order is an order to show cause, not a dismissal, and it decides nothing about the merits of any claim.
- Peterson was directed to explain in writing, by November 4, 2026, why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims.
- The court framed the inquiry around judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and said those values must be weighed at every stage of the litigation, not only at filing.
- The court warned that inadequate compliance may lead to dismissal of the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b), but that outcome has not occurred and is only a stated possibility.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district court raising supplemental jurisdiction itself, early in a case that pairs a federal ADA claim with California state claims, rather than waiting for a motion from the defendant. By citing Arroyo and Vo and the continuing duty described in International College of Surgeons, it signals that the plaintiff should be ready to justify keeping the state claims in federal court.
Because the order is an unpublished minute order in a single case, it carries no precedential weight and does not announce a rule. Its practical importance is for the parties: the plaintiff must respond on the court's schedule, and the court's later ruling on whether to keep or decline the state law claims will be the decision that matters. Readers should not treat the order as showing how the court will rule.