Case 2:22-cv-03724-MEMF-JEM Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:44

1 O

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No.: 2:22-cv-03724-MEMF (JEMx) 11 DEONDRE RAGLIN,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 13 v. COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLE MENTAL 14 JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S MV SAILOR CORP., STATE LAW CLAIMS 15 Defendant. 16

17

18

19

20 On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff Deondre Raglin filed a Complaint against Defendant MV Sailor

21 Corp. asserting: (1) a claim for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment arising out of an alleged 22 violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

; (2) a claim for 23 damages and declaratory judgment pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), 24 CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 51–52 et seq.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled 25 Persons Act, CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 54 et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 26 the, California Unfair Competition Act, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200 et seq.; and (5) a claim for 27 negligence. See generally ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the 28 1 Case 2:22-cv-03724-MEMF-JEM Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:45

1 ADA claim pursuant to

, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to

2 pendant [sic] jurisdiction.”

.

3 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute,

4

. The supplemental jurisdiction statute “reflects the understanding that, when

5 deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, ‘a federal court should consider and weigh in

6 each case, and at every stage of the litigation, the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness,

7 and comity.’” City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons,

(1997) (emphasis added)

8 (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

(1988)).

9 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits

10 brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter

11 pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the

12 instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim,

13 including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which

14 the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A

15 “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these

16 claims. See CAL. GOV’T CODE § 70616.5.

17 In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court

18 should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons

19 Act claim, the California Unfair Competition Act, and the negligence claim. See

1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory

21 damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel shall also support their responses 22 to the Order to Show Cause with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts 23 necessary for the Court to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as 24 provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). 25 26 27 / / / 28 / / / 2 Case 2:22-cv-03724-MEMF-JEM Document 14 Filed 10/13/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:46

1 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause within fourteen (14) days of the 2 date of this Order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause may, 3 without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 4 Unruh Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Unfair Competition Act, and the 5 negligence claims pursuant to

(c). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 Dated: October 13, 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