Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01826/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01826-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD, No. CIV-S-04-1826 MCE/GGH 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER

SHAM SIDHER and ROMA SIDHER 

dba QUIZNO’S; JOHN FORSTER 

and LISA FORSTER, Trustees 

of the FORSTER FAMILY TRUST, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Defendants Sham Sidher and Roma Sidher (hereinafter

“Defendants Sidher”) have objected to this court’s Pretrial

Scheduling Order which was filed on May 10, 2005 on two grounds. 

First, Defendants Sidher request that this court to allow

them to file any appropriate cross/third party complaint until

November 18, 2005. This request is based upon the fact

Defendants John Forster and Lisa Forster were not served with the

complaint in this matter until after Defendants Sidher answered

the complaint. The court will grant Defendants Sidher’s request

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 19 Filed 06/09/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

to file a third party complaint and conduct discovery as to

Defendants John Forster and Lisa Forster until August 31, 2005.

Requests to file a third party complaint against any other

parties will be accomplished according to the terms of the

Pretrial Scheduling Order.

Second, Defendants Sidher have also requested that this

court modify the Pretrial Scheduling Order to the extent that

this court will deny or defer exercise of jurisdiction over any

pendent state law claims. Jurisdiction in this case is

predicated upon 28 U.S.C. sections 1331, 1343 and 1367. There is

no dispute in this regard. 

With respect to any pendent state law claims, it is well

settled that the district court may exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over those state law claims if they form a part of

the same case or controversy. Supplemental jurisdiction over

state law claims is squarely within the district court’s

discretion. City of Chicago v. International College of

Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172 (1997). 

In this early stage of this case, the court has not

determined what state claims, if any, over which it will exercise

supplemental jurisdiction. 

The fact that plaintiff is allegedly an “activist litigant”

who has filed similar suits for money in similar instances under

California law (objections to Pretrial Scheduling Order 2, 26-27)

is not controlling at this date of these proceedings.

///

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 19 Filed 06/09/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

The request of Defendants Sidher to modify the Pretrial 

Scheduling Order to deny or defer jurisdiction over pendent state 

law claims is DENIED.

In all other respects, the Pretrial Scheduling Order filed 

in this case on May 10, 2005 is confirmed. No further objections 

to the Pretrial Scheduling Order will be permitted.

DATE: June 9, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01826-MCE -GGH Document 19 Filed 06/09/05 Page 3 of 3