LOS ANGELES (LN) — U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued an order to show cause on April 22, directing Raglin to provide declarations detailing the number of construction-related accessibility claims he has filed in the 12 months preceding the current suit, as well as the number of such claims his counsel has represented.
Raglin filed his complaint on April 8 against Defendants Amit C. Patel d/b/a Budget Inn and Sunsets Lakshmi LLC, asserting a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law claims for damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Disabled Persons Act, and the Health and Safety Code.
The court noted that California law imposes a heightened pleading standard on plaintiffs bringing construction-access claims, requiring them to allege specific facts about barriers encountered and dates of deterrence. The statute also defines a “high-frequency litigant” as a plaintiff who has filed 10 or more complaints alleging construction-related accessibility violations within the preceding 12 months.
Under California Government Code Section 70616.5, such litigants are subject to a “high-frequency litigant fee.” The court’s order requires Raglin to state whether the complaint is filed by a high-frequency litigant and, if so, the number of prior complaints filed period.
Judge Frimpong emphasized that federal courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
“In light of the foregoing, the Court orders Raglin 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 Health and Safety Code claim, and the negligence claim,” the order states.
Raglin has 14 days of the order to file a response. The court warned that failure to timely or adequately respond may result in the dismissal of the state law claims without further warning.
The order also requires Raglin and his counsel to support their response with declarations signed under penalty of perjury, providing all facts necessary to determine if they satisfy the definition of a high-frequency litigant.
Specifically, the court seeks the number of construction-related accessibility claims filed by Raglin in the 12 months preceding the present claim, and the number of such claims in which Raglin’s counsel has represented high-frequency litigant plaintiffs period.
Raglin must also identify the amount of statutory damages he seeks to recover.
The case remains pending in the Central District of California.