Deondre Raglin v. Barstow Flower Shop, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Plaintiff Deondre Raglin to show cause why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his California state-law accessibility claims. The order discusses California’s heightened pleading requirements and high-frequency litigant provisions for construction-related accessibility claims. Plaintiff was directed to identify the statutory damages sought and submit a declaration addressing whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant.

Holdings

1. Supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff, and the court may consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity at every stage of the litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) in light of California's heightened requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and Plaintiff's alleged status as a high-frequency litigant.

Disposition

other