Johnson v. AMPDM, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued AMPDM, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning Ben’s BBQ & Brew in San Jose, California. Johnson sought injunctive relief under the ADA and the Unruh Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.

Court’s Analysis

Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court explained that federal law permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law issue is novel or complex, the state-law claims substantially predominate, all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court cited numerous California federal decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims paired with ADA accessibility claims. It also relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, which discussed the recent increase in these filings and California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims. The court stated that filing related claims in federal court may avoid those state requirements and threaten California’s policy choices and the role of its state courts. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations.

Order

The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to provide reasons—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson must file a response within 21 days of the order. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel must also submit declarations providing all facts needed to determine whether they satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.

This order did not finally decide whether AMPDM violated the ADA or the Unruh Act, and it did not yet state that the court was declining supplemental jurisdiction or dismissing the complaint.