Johnson v. Wong
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-06786
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Wong, Judge Chhabria ordered the plaintiff and counsel to support jurisdiction or face possible dismissal.
Scott Johnson, his counsel, and the defendants; the order requires sworn declarations from Johnson and his counsel and gives the defendants a possible opportunity for jurisdictional discovery.
What happened
In Johnson v. Wong, the court questioned whether it should hear the plaintiff’s California Unruh Act claim alongside the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It also ordered the plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed because he may lack constitutional standing.
The plaintiff and his lawyer must each submit a separate sworn declaration within 21 days. The plaintiff must provide details supporting his claimed visit to the establishment and intent to return; counsel must describe the investigation into those allegations. The defendant may seek discovery about those issues, and the court said it will likely hold an in-person hearing.
Judge Vince Chhabria did not finally dismiss the case in this order. He vacated the other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from certain procedural requirements; if the plaintiff and counsel do not respond, the action will be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Wong · No. 3:21-cv-06786
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Wilkie H. Wong and other defendants, asserting a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a California Unruh Act claim. The order states that federal courts may decline to hear a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. It directs Johnson to explain why the court should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—over the Unruh Act claim.
The court also raised an independent question about subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically whether Johnson has Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute. The court required evidence concerning Johnson’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment and the allegation that he personally visited it. 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.
Order
The court ordered Johnson and his counsel to submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury within 21 days. Johnson’s declaration must substantiate, in detail, that he visited the establishment and intends to return. Counsel’s declaration must describe, in detail, the investigation conducted to confirm those facts.
If the declarations are facially adequate, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery—fact-gathering focused on whether the court has jurisdiction—about Johnson’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. Whether or not that discovery occurs, the court said it will likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to assess the truth of the jurisdictional allegations.
Disposition and effect
Judge Vince Chhabria issued an order to show cause; he did not finally rule on the Unruh Act claim, standing, or the court’s jurisdiction. He vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. The order states that failure to respond within 21 days will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.