Deondre Raglin v. Lichuan Pan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | 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 13 | REVOCABLE TRUST; and DOES 1 to 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff Deondre Raglin Park filed a Complaint against Defendant 21 | Lichuan Pan, as trustee of the Pan revocable trust , asserting: (1) a claim for myjunctive relief arising 22 | out of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12010- 23 || 12213; (2) aclaim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), CAL. 24 || Civ. CODE §§ 51-52, et seg.; (3) a claim for damages pursuant to the California Disabled Persons 25 || Act, CAL. Civ. CODE §§ 54, et seq.; (4) a claim for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the 26 || CAL. Bus. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seg.; and (5) a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. The 27 || Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over the ADA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 28

1 || and 1343, and that the state law claims are brought “pursuant to pendant [sic] jurisdiction.” Jd. at □□ 2 | 1-2. 3 Principles of pendent jurisdiction have been codified in the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 4 | 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 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, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997) (emphasis added) 8 || (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 10 | brought under the Unruh Act. See CAL. Crv. 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. A “high-frequency litigant” is “a plaintiff who has filed 10 17 | or more complaints alleging a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period 18 | immediately preceding the filing of the current complaint alleging a construction-related 19 | accessibility violation” and “an attorney who has represented as attorney of record 10 or more high- 20 || frequency litigant plaintiffs in actions that were resolved within the 12-month period immediately 21 || 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) 23 || whether the complaint is filed by, or on behalf of, a high-frequency litigant; (2) in the case of a high- 24 | frequency litigant who is a plaintiff, the number of complaints alleging construction-related 25 || accessibility claim filed by the high-frequency litigant during the 12 months prior to filing the instant 26 || complaint; (3) the reason the individual was in the geographic area of the defendant’s business; and 27 || (4) the reason why the individual desired to access the defendant’s business.” See id. § 28 || 425.50(a)(4)(A).

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the Court 2 || should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons 3 | Act claim, the California Business and Professional Code claim, and the negligence claim. See 28 4 | 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 17 || from the date of this order. The failure to timely or adequately respond to this Order to Show Cause 18 | may, without further warning, result in the Court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 19 | the Unruh Act claim, the California Disabled Persons Act claim, the California Business and 20 || Professional Code claim, and the negligence claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 || Dated: May 18, 2023 as . 26 MAAMI. EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG 27 United States District Judge 28