Deondre Raglin v. Dukmajian SP Holding, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEONDRE RAGLIN, Case No. 2:23-cv-06014-WLH-MAAx 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE v. S OU VP EP RL TE HM EE N STT AA TL E J U LR AI WSD CI LC AT II MON S DUKMAJIAN SP HOLDING, LLC ET

AL,

15 Defendant.

17 The Complaint filed in this action asserts a claim for injunctive relief arising out 18 of an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and a 19 claim for damages pursuant to California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), 20 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. In the Complaint, Plaintiff requests the court exercise 21 supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 22 The United States Supreme Court has recognized supplemental jurisdiction “is 23 a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right, and that district courts can decline to 24 exercise jurisdiction over pendent claims for a number of valid reasons.” City of Chi. 25 v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S.…