Deondre Raglin v. Lichuan Pan

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | DEONDRE RAGLIN, Case No.: 2:23-cv-0255 1-MEMF(Ex) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO 13 v. EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S 14 STATE LAW CLAIMS LICHUAN PAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE PAN | REVOCABLE TRUST; and DOES 1 to 10, 16 Defendants.

20 On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff Deondre Raglin Park filed a Complaint against Defendant | Lichuan Pan, as trustee of the Pan revocable trust , asserting: (1) a claim for myjunctive relief arising | out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010- || 12213; (2) aclaim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. || Civ. CODE §§ 51-52, et seg.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons || Act, CAL. Civ. CODE §§ 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the || CAL. Bus. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seg.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The || Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 || and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Jd. at □□ | 1-2.

3 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, | 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 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. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) || (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)).

9 California law sets forth a heightened pleading standard for a limited group of lawsuits | brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. Crv. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(a)(2) & (3). The stricter | pleading standard requires certain plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims like the one in the | instant case to file a verified complaint alleging specific facts concerning the plaintiff’s claim, | including the specific barriers encountered or how the plaintiff was deterred and each date on which | the plaintiff encountered each barrier or was deterred. See CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.50(a). A | “high-frequency litigant fee” is also imposed on certain plaintiffs and law firms bringing these | claims. See CAL. Gov’T CoDE § 70616.5. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 | or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period | immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related | accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high- || frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately || preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related accessibility violation.”

22 | CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). High frequency litigants are also required to state: (1) || whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high- | frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related || accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant || complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and || (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § || 425.50(a)(4)(A).

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court || should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons | Act claim, the California Business and Professional Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 | U.S.C. § 1367(c). In responding to this Order to Show Cause: 5 1. Plaintiff shall identify the amount of statutory damages Plaintiff seeks to recover.

6 2. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall also support their responses to the Order to Show Cause 7 with declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary for the Court 8 to determine if they satisfy the definition of a “high-frequency litigant” as provided by 9 California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 425.55(b)(1) & (2). This includes, but is not limited 10 to: 1] a. the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Plaintiff in the twelve 12 months preceding the filing of the present claim; and 13 b. the number of construction-related accessibility claims in which Plaintiff's counsel 14 has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs in the twelve months preceding the 15 filing of the present claim.

16 Plaintiff shall file a Response to this Order to Show Cause by no later than fourteen days || from the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause | may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over | the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Business and || Professional Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

22 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: May 18, 2023 as .

26 MAAMI. EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 27 United States District Judge