[T]he statute of limitations for a Section 1983 or Section 1985 claim brought in 13 California is two years.
- Terrell v. City of Brentwood, No. 3:25-cv-04341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025).([T]he statute of limitations for a Section 1983 or Section 1985 claim brought in 13 California is two years.)
- Terrell v. City of Brentwood, No. 3:25-cv-04341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025).([T]he statute of limitations for a Section 1983 or Section 1985 claim brought in 13 California is two years.)
“the statute of limitations for a section 1983 or section 1985 claim brought in 13 california is two years.”
- Terrell v. City of Brentwood, No. 3:25-cv-04341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2025).“the statute of limitations for a section 1983 or section 1985 claim brought in 13 california is two years.”
- Terrell v. City of Brentwood, No. 3:25-cv-04341 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2025).“the statute of limitations for a section 1983 or section 1985 claim brought in 13 california is two years.”
Other citing cases
- Flores, No. 1:25-cv-01833 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2026).
- Christian Alcala v. City of Garden Grove, No. 8:25-cv-00078 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2025).
v.
County of San Bernardino
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—
GENERAL
Case No. 5:24-cv-01046-SSS-DTBx Date May 20, 2024 Title Mary Lyons v. County of San Bernardino, et al.
Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
None Present None Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
[*~1024–1027]The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief based on an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, a claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq, and related state claims. The Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state 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 Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). The Court therefore orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
[*~1025–1027]Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses to this Order with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to CIVIL MINUTES— determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2).
Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than May 31, 2024. The Court sets a hearing date regarding this Order to Show Cause on June 7, 2024, at 1:00 PM via Zoom.[1]
Plaintiff’s failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order may, without further warning, result in the dismissal of the entire action without prejudice or the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and related state claims and dismissing the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CIVIL MINUTES—