Deondre Raglin v. Jeffrey Todd Gass et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California orders Plaintiff Deondre Raglin to show cause why his Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent concerning California's high-frequency litigant reforms and federal-state comity, the Court directs Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages sought and provide declarations addressing whether he and his counsel qualify as high-frequency litigants.

Holdings

1. The court has authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because it is closely related to Plaintiff's ADA claim, but supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary rather than a right of the plaintiff.
2. At the preliminary order-to-show-cause stage, the court determined that the circumstances identified in Arroyo appear to support declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c)(4), subject to Plaintiff's response.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act claim because it is closely related to his ADA claim.
2. Whether exceptional circumstances and federal-state comity interests identified in Arroyo v. Rosas warrant declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) at this early stage of the litigation.

Disposition

other