Johnson v. Prince Fen Guizhou Cuisine Service LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Prince Fen Guizhou Cuisine Service LLC, asserting a claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order states that Johnson is a “high-frequency” litigant and explains that, in such cases, the combination of an Americans with Disabilities Act claim and an Unruh Act claim will typically be an exceptional circumstance allowing a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim.

The court also ordered Johnson to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury and the requested relief. The court specifically questioned the jurisdictional allegations concerning Johnson’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment.

Because of allegations made by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, the court required Johnson’s declaration to provide detailed support for the allegation that he visited the establishment in the first place. The court required counsel’s separate declaration to describe in detail the investigation counsel conducted to confirm that Johnson had visited the establishment and intended to return. Both declarations had to be sworn under penalty of perjury.

Possible Discovery and Hearing

If the court found the declarations facially adequate, the defendant would have the option to conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery could address Johnson’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurred, the court said it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.

Disposition and Effect

This was an order to show cause, not an immediate final dismissal. Johnson and his counsel were required to respond within 21 days of the order. The court stated that failure to respond would 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 did not decide the underlying disability or state-law claims in this order.