Johnson v. Fogli Family Enterprises, LLC
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-07009
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Fogli Family Enterprises, Judge Illston ordered briefing on supplemental jurisdiction while defendants’ jurisdiction motion remained pending.
Scott Johnson and the defendants, including Fogli Family Enterprises, LLC; the order required Johnson to address whether the court should hear his state-law claim.
What happened
In Johnson v. Fogli Family Enterprises, LLC, defendants asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, mainly arguing that Scott Johnson lacked standing.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why, if it found federal jurisdiction over his Americans with Disabilities Act claim, it should not decline to hear his state-law Unruh Act claim. The court cited a Ninth Circuit decision discussing exceptional circumstances for declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Judge Susan Illston did not decide the jurisdiction motion or the claims in this order. She required Johnson’s opposition brief, due February 9, 2022, to address why the case should survive defendants’ motion.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Fogli Family Enterprises, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-07009
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 27, 2022
Background
Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order says that the motion primarily addressed standing and did not address supplemental jurisdiction, which is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.
Johnson asserted a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a state-law claim under the Unruh Act.
Order
The court ordered Scott Johnson to show why, if the court determined that it had jurisdiction over his federal ADA claim, it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. The court relied on Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), which discussed circumstances in which declining supplemental jurisdiction could be appropriate if the issue was raised earlier in the case.
Johnson’s opposition brief was due February 9, 2022, and was required to address why the case should survive defendants’ motion.
Disposition and scope
This order did not grant or deny defendants’ motion to dismiss, determine whether Johnson had standing, decide whether the court had jurisdiction over the ADA claim, or resolve either claim. It required additional briefing on supplemental jurisdiction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.