Johnson v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. The court focused on two jurisdictional questions: whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim, over the Unruh Act claim, and whether Johnson had Article III standing to pursue the ADA claim in federal court.

Unruh Act Claim

The court stated that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. It cited decisions stating that a high-frequency litigant’s assertion of a California Unruh Act claim alongside an ADA claim will typically qualify as such a circumstance. The court ordered Johnson to show cause—explain—to the court why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Article III Standing

The court stated that it has an independent duty to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even without a challenge from a party. It ordered Johnson to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Johnson’s declaration must support, in detail, his alleged visit to O’Reilly’s establishment and his intent to return. The court specifically required detail about whether Johnson personally visited the establishment in the first place.

Johnson’s counsel must submit a separate declaration under penalty of perjury describing, in detail, the investigation counsel conducted to ensure that Johnson visited the establishment and intends to return. The order referred to allegations by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, but it did not decide those allegations in this order.

Possible Discovery and Hearing

If the court finds the declarations facially adequate, O’Reilly may conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery may address Johnson’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurs, the court stated that it will likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truth of the jurisdictional allegations.

Order

The court ordered Johnson and his counsel to respond within 21 days. It stated that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. In the meantime, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order. The order did not make a final ruling on the ADA claim, the Unruh Act claim, standing, or supplemental jurisdiction.