Deondre Raglin v. Nancy Charmaine Henry
Deondre Raglin v. Nancy Charmaine Henry
Trial Court Opinion
Case 5:22-cv-00881-MEMF-KK Document 11 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No.: 5:22-cv-00881-MEMF(KKx) 11 DEONDRE RAGLIN,
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OV ER PLAINTIFF’S 14 STATE LAW CLAIMS NANCY CHARMAINE HENRY, AS 15 TRUSTEE OF THE NANCY CHARMAINE
16 HENRY LIVING TRUST; and DOES 1 through 10, 17 Defendants. 18
19
20 On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Deondre Raglin filed a Complaint against Defendant Nancy 21 Charmaine Henry, asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief arising out of an alleged violation of the 22 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 12010-12213; (2) a claim for damages 23 pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51-52 et seq.; (3) 24 a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; 25 (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et 26 seq.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has 27 jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and that the state law claims are 28 brought “pursuant to pendant[sp] jurisdiction.”
Id.¶¶ 1–2. 1 Case 5:22-cv-00881-MEMF-KK Document 11 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:41
1 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,
2
28 U.S.C. § 1367. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when
3 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in
4 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,
5 and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,
522 U.S. 156, 173(1997) (emphasis added)
6 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,
484 U.S. 343, 350(1988)).
7 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits
8 brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter pleading
9 standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the instant
10 case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, including the
11 specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which the plaintiff
12 encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A “high-frequency
13 litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these claims. See CAL.
14 GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.
15 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court
16 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons
17 Act claim, the California Business and Professions Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28
18 U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of
19 statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and his counsel shall also support their
20 responses to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing
21 all facts necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency 22 litigant” as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). 23 24 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 5:22-cv-00881-MEMF-KK Document 11 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:42
1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by June 30, 2022. The failure to
2 timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, without further warning, result in the
3 Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California
4 Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Business and Professions Code claim, and the negligence
5 claim pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10 Dated: June 14, 2022 ___________________________________
11 MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG
12 United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
Reference
- Status
- Unknown