Johnson v. Sundowner Inn LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-00624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Sundowner Inn LLC, Judge Chhabria ordered plaintiff and counsel to support jurisdiction or face dismissal.
Scott Johnson must respond with a sworn declaration, and his counsel must submit a separate sworn declaration. Sundowner Inn LLC may conduct jurisdictional discovery if the declarations are facially adequate.
What happened
In Johnson v. Sundowner Inn LLC, the court questioned whether it should keep the state-law California Unruh Act claim alongside the federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It ordered the plaintiff to explain why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed for lack of constitutional standing. The plaintiff and counsel must each submit a separate sworn declaration addressing whether the plaintiff visited the establishment and intends to return, and counsel must describe the investigation conducted on those issues.
Judge Chhabria gave the plaintiff and counsel 21 days to respond. If the declarations appear adequate, the defendant may conduct limited jurisdiction-related discovery, and the court will likely hold an in-person hearing. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice; other deadlines were vacated temporarily.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Sundowner Inn LLC · No. 3:22-cv-00624
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act against Sundowner Inn LLC. The order does not decide whether either claim ultimately succeeds.
Court’s Concerns
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain to the court—why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority to hear a state-law claim connected to a federal claim. The court stated that, in exceptional circumstances, it may decline that jurisdiction and cited decisions involving high-frequency litigants asserting Unruh Act claims together with ADA claims. The opinion does not expressly state that Johnson is a high-frequency litigant.
The court also ordered Johnson to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a concrete injury and a sufficient connection to the challenged conduct. Johnson’s declaration must substantiate his intent to return to Sundowner Inn and provide detailed support for his allegation that he personally visited the establishment. Counsel’s separate declaration must describe in detail the investigation counsel conducted to confirm those facts. Both declarations must be sworn under penalty of perjury.
Next Steps and Order
If the declarations are facially adequate, Sundowner Inn may choose to conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning 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.
Johnson and his counsel must respond within 21 days of the order. The court 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 on April 19, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.