Eduardo Soto v. W.B. Investments, LLC et al
| Eduardo Soto |
| W.B. Investments, LLC and Does 1 to 10 |
| 2:2026cv00921 |
| January 29, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stephanie S Christensen |
| Otis D Wright |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 5, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Eduardo Soto, upon Defendant W.B. Investments, LLC served on 3/3/2026, answer due 3/24/2026. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon ADAM WARREN, AS AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by personal service (Soller, Jason) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error, Docket Entries 15, 16 and 17 were inadvertently docketed to this case. Please disregard the entries. (jtil) |
| Filing 17 (SEE NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR #18 ) Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) Modified on 2/26/2026 (jtil). |
| Filing 16 (SEE NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR #18 ) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (jtil) Modified on 2/26/2026 (jtil). |
| Filing 15 (SEE NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR #18 ) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes and Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym. (jtil) Modified on 2/26/2026 (jtil). |
Filing 14
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Plaintiff shall immediately serve a copy of this order on any Defendant that Plaintiff has already served and file a proof of such service with the Court within ten (10) days. Plaintiff shall include a copy of this order with service on any Defendant that Plaintiff has not yet served. The Court, in its discretion, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and any other construction-related accessibility claim. The Court therefore dismisses any such claims without prejudice. (lc)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Eduardo Sototo Generic Text Only Entry,,,,,,,, 12 re: Supplemental Jurisdiction (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration)(Soller, Jason) |
| Filing 12 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. 1201012213, and a claim for damages pursuant to Californias Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act), Cal. Civ. Code 5153. It appears that the Court possesses only supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and any other state law claim that Plaintiff may have alleged, pursuant to the Courts supplemental jurisdiction. 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. Intl 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 any other state law claim asserted in the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a high frequency litigant as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) & (2). PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to this Order to Show Cause by no later than TWO WEEKS from the date of this Order. 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 declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims, if any, and the dismissal of that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c).THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (sce) TEXT ONLY ENTRY |
|
Filing 11
MINUTE (In Chambers): Order Regarding Prosecution of Certain Cases Under the Americans With Disabilities Act by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The failure to comply with this Order or any other Order issued in this case will result in a sanction of $300payable to the clerk of the court within two weeks of Plaintiff being given notice of noncomplianceand dismissal for lack of prosecution. The Court finds these sanctions sufficient and necessary to deter violations of the Order and to achieve timely prosecution of these cases without unnecessary intervention by the Court. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (chk)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO PARTIES: ADA DISABILITY ACCESS LITIGATION In this action alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12181-12189, Plaintiff is directed to serve three documents (the ADA Packet) on the Defendant(s): (1) this Notice to Parties; (2) the attached Application for Stay and Early Mediation; and (3) the attached [Proposed] Order Granting Application for Stay and Early Mediation. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (chk) |
|
Filing 9
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Otis D. Wright II. *** EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY*** No mandatory chambers copies required, EXCEPT FOR motions for summary judgment and any other evidence-heavy motions. Counsel are STRONGLY encouraged to review the Central District's website for additional information. The address is "http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov."It is not necessary to clear a motion date with the Court Clerk prior to filing the motion. The Court hears motions on Mondays, Criminal at 10:30 a.m. and Civil at 1:30 p.m. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (chk)
|
| Filing 8 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant W.B. Investments, LLC. (et) |
| Filing 7 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (et) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen. (et) |
| Filing 4 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Eduardo Soto. (Soller, Jason) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff All Plaintiffs, (Soller, Jason) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Eduardo Soto. (Soller, Jason) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-41384461 - Fee: $405, filed by Plaintiff Eduardo Soto. (Attorney Jason Theodore Soller added to party Eduardo Soto(pty:pla))(Soller, Jason) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
