Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Julio Cruz sued Starwest Insurance Services, LLC and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. According to the order's description of the complaint, the action asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 through 53; the California Disabled Persons Act, Civil Code section 54 et seq.; California Health and Safety Code section 19955 et seq.; and negligence. Those are the plaintiff's allegations and legal theories. The order makes no findings about the facts underlying them or about whether any claim has merit.
In a short in-chambers civil minute entry dated October 28, 2026, the court observed that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). It quoted City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), for the proposition that 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. The court also referred to Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), and Vo v. Choi, 49 F.4th 1167 (9th Cir. 2022), as relevant authority on exercising supplemental jurisdiction, without describing what those decisions held.
The order was issued without briefing from either side. It does not discuss the defendants' positions, the facts of the dispute, or the sufficiency of the federal claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued an order to show cause. This is a directive, not a ruling on the merits or a final judgment. It orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the complaint, with the response due on or before November 4, 2026. The court did not decline jurisdiction, dismiss any claim, or indicate how it will resolve the question after reading the response.
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), Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 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), which recognize a court's authority to dismiss sua sponte for failure to prosecute. The warning is conditional, and no dismissal has been entered. The order does not say what relief would follow if the court ultimately declines supplemental jurisdiction, and it does not separately analyze the federal claim.
Key Takeaways
- The order is an in-chambers show-cause directive. It does not decide the merits, resolve the jurisdictional question, or adjudicate any party's rights.
- The court states that it has only supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and requires Plaintiff to explain in writing, by November 4, 2026, why that jurisdiction should be exercised.
- The court frames the inquiry around judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, which it says must be weighed in each case and at every stage of the litigation.
- The order warns that inadequate compliance may lead to dismissal of the action with prejudice and without further notice under Rule 41(b), but no dismissal has occurred.
- Whether the state law claims stay in federal court, and what ultimately happens to the case, remains open until the court reviews Plaintiff's response.
Why It Matters
The order shows a court raising supplemental jurisdiction on its own initiative, before any motion, in a case that combines a federal disability claim with several California statutory and common law claims. By stating that the supplemental jurisdiction inquiry continues at every stage of the litigation, the court makes clear that a federal claim in the complaint does not by itself settle whether the accompanying state claims will be heard in federal court. The order cites Arroyo and Vo without summarizing them, so readers who want to understand the governing standards should consult those decisions directly rather than rely on this order.
This is a brief procedural order in a single case and carries no precedential weight. Its practical value is as an example of how a plaintiff in this posture can expect to be asked to justify the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction on a short deadline, and of the risk the court attaches to an inadequate response. The outcome depends on Plaintiff's response and on a later ruling that is not part of the materials reviewed.