Johnson v. V.O. Limited Partners
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-05855
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. V.O. Limited Partners, Judge Chhabria ordered responses about jurisdiction before deciding whether the case should continue.
Scott Johnson, Johnson’s counsel, and the defendants are affected. Johnson and counsel must provide sworn declarations; the defendants may conduct jurisdictional discovery if they choose; and the case’s other deadlines are temporarily vacated.
What happened
In Johnson v. V.O. Limited Partners, the court questioned whether it should keep the plaintiff’s California Unruh Act claim alongside the federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The court also questioned whether the plaintiff had a sufficient connection to the defendant’s establishment to bring the federal claim.
The plaintiff and the plaintiff’s lawyer must each submit a separate sworn declaration within 21 days. The plaintiff must provide details supporting an intent to return and the allegation that the plaintiff visited the establishment; counsel must describe the investigation into those matters.
Judge Chhabria said the defendant may seek discovery on those jurisdictional issues, and the court will likely hold an in-person hearing. The court vacated other deadlines for now and warned that failing to respond will result in dismissal with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. V.O. Limited Partners · No. 3:21-cv-05855
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued V.O. Limited Partners and other defendants, asserting a claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order states that when a high-frequency litigant brings an Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, that combination will typically be an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take a specified action—on two issues:
1. Why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. 2. Why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing on the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury for a federal court to hear the claim.
The court required Johnson to submit a declaration sworn under penalty of perjury substantiating the allegations about Johnson’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment. The declaration must also provide detailed support for the allegation that Johnson visited the establishment in the first place. The court separately required Johnson’s counsel to submit a declaration describing, in detail, the investigation counsel conducted to confirm that Johnson visited the establishment and intended to return.
Possible Further Proceedings and Disposition
If the declarations appear adequate on their face, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning Johnson’s intent to return and whether Johnson personally visited the establishment. The court stated that it will likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truth of the jurisdictional allegations, whether or not discovery occurs.
The plaintiff and 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. The order itself did not dismiss the action or finally decide whether federal jurisdiction exists.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.