Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01194-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cotton On USA, Inc.
Defendant
Fernando Gastelum
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO GASTELUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

COTTON ON USA, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01194-SAB 

ORDER TO SHOW CASE AND VACATING 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum, proceeding pro se, commenced 

this action alleging public accessibility violations against Defendant Cotton On USA, Inc.,

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), along with accompanying state law 

claims. (ECF No. 1.) On December 19, 2022, Defendant answered, and on February 1, 2023,

the Court issued an order to show case directing Plaintiff to show cause as to whether this Court 

should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims regarding the Unruh 

Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54. (ECF No. 11.) 

Following responses from the parties (ECF Nos. 13, 14), the Court declined to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed all state law claims without prejudice. (ECF No. 17.) 

On May 4, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order with, as relevant here, a dispositive 

motion deadline of October 21, 2024, a pretrial conference set for January 17, 2025, and a jury 

trial set for March 4, 2025. (ECF No. 19.) No dispositive motions were filed.

On January 10, 2025, the parties filed their joint pretrial statement. (ECF No. 20.) 

Case 1:22-cv-01194-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/13/25 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

27

28

2

Therein, Defendant asserts, for the first time, there might be issues of standing and subjectmatter jurisdiction—namely, Defendant states that Plaintiff’s ADA claim has become moot, and

Plaintiff has declined to a stipulation of dismissal. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) As its basis, Defendant notes 

that federal courts may address standing at any time. (Id. at p. 4.) 

The Court notes from the outset that Defendant’s assertions regarding standing and 

subject-matter jurisdiction would require the Court to making certain factual findings and legal 

conclusions, which the Court cannot do from the parties’ pretrial statement. Moreover, the Court 

observes that Defendant has not given a reason as to why it could not have raised its 

jurisdictional argument in a dispositive motion. Therefore, the Court admonishes Defendant that 

while the Court can reach the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time, Defendant should 

have raised this argument in a dispositive motion in order to give notice to the Court regarding 

whether a trial is going forward and, as relevant here, to move for judicial notice and/or 

incorporation so that the Court can have a factual basis from which to make a ruling. 

Notwithstanding, and in light of judicial economy, the Court has determined to issue an 

order to show cause regarding standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. Given Plaintiff’s pro se 

status, the Court will direct Defendant to respond first and thereafter Plaintiff may reply. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

1. Defendant shall have through January 22, 2025, to show cause in writing, no longer 

than fifteen (15) pages, to this order as to why this Court does not have subject-matter 

jurisdiction. At that same time, Defendant shall separately move for a request for 

judicial notice and/or incorporation of all documents that support the response.

2. Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days following service of Defendant’s response to show 

cause in writing, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, on the issue of whether this Court 

has subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition, Plaintiff shall also address why he 

believes his state-law claims have not been dismissed, despite this Court’s previous 

order dismissing those claims without prejudice. (ECF No. 17.)

3. Following Plaintiff’s response (or the deadline for Plaintiff to file his response), the 

Court will consider the matter submitted. 

Case 1:22-cv-01194-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/13/25 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

27

28

3

4. In light of the foregoing, the Court VACATES the pretrial conference scheduled for 

January 17, 2025. At this time, the Court will keep the March 4, 2025 trial on 

calendar, and if necessary, address the issue of whether this will proceed as a jury or 

bench trial in its order following the parties’ responses to this order to show cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-01194-SAB Document 21 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 3