Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dena Peterson filed a complaint in the Central District of California against Red Tile Inn, Inc. The complaint asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California's Disabled Persons Act, and for negligence. The order identifies the claims only by statute and label. It does not describe the underlying facts, the alleged conditions at issue, or the relief sought, and nothing in it treats Peterson's allegations as established.
The court observed that it possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). On October 28, 2026, Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued the in-chambers order to show cause re supplemental jurisdiction. The minute order records that no attorneys were present for either side, which is the ordinary notation for a chambers order and does not indicate a hearing took place.
The order is a two-page civil minute order issued at the start of the case. The materials provided contain no response from Peterson, no motion by the defendant, and no later ruling, so the outcome is unknown.
The Court’s Holding
The court did not decide whether to exercise or decline supplemental jurisdiction. It ordered Peterson to show cause in writing, on or before November 4, 2026, why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims asserted in the complaint. The order is a directive to brief the question, not a ruling on it.
The court framed the inquiry through City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997), which describes a federal court as required to consider and weigh, in each case and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. It 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, adding that its reference was not limited to those cases. The order does not summarize those decisions or apply them to this complaint.
The order warns that failure to adequately comply may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice and without further notice, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), Link v. Wabash Railroad, and Ninth Circuit authority on sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute. That is a stated possible consequence of noncompliance. No dismissal has been entered, and the order does not say how the court would rule if Peterson responds adequately.
Key Takeaways
- The order to show cause is procedural: it requires a written response by November 4, 2026, and decides nothing about whether the state claims stay in federal court.
- The court stated that it has only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, and negligence claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- The court tied the inquiry to judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, and identified Arroyo v. Rosas and Vo v. Choi as relevant Ninth Circuit authority without discussing their holdings.
- The stated risk of noncompliance is dismissal of the action with prejudice under Rule 41(b), a consequence for failing to respond adequately and not a ruling on the merits of any claim.
- As an unreported in-chambers minute order, it has no precedential weight and shows only how this judge handled this case at its outset.
Why It Matters
The order shows a district court using a show-cause procedure to make a plaintiff justify federal jurisdiction over state law claims before the case proceeds, rather than waiting for a defendant to raise the issue. By citing City of Chicago, it treats the supplemental jurisdiction decision as ongoing and discretionary, to be revisited throughout the litigation.
Its practical importance is limited. It is a short, unreported minute order that makes no findings, does not explain what Arroyo and Vo require in this setting, and does not predict the result. What remains open is whether Peterson will respond by the deadline, whether the court will keep or decline the state claims, and, if it declines them, how the remaining ADA claim will proceed. Readers should look to the later docket activity and to the cited Ninth Circuit opinions themselves rather than reading this order as a statement of the governing rule.