Johnson v. 1800 RC Partners, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued 1800 RC Partners, LLC, and other defendants, asserting a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California Unruh Act claim. The order does not decide whether either claim is valid.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take a specified action—on two jurisdictional issues:

1. The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the authority to hear a related state-law claim together with a federal claim, over the Unruh Act claim. The court cited decisions stating that a high-frequency litigant’s Unruh Act claim brought alongside an ADA claim will typically present an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. The order does not expressly state that the plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant. 2. The court independently questioned whether the plaintiff had Article III standing, the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged harm, to pursue the ADA claim. Specifically, the court required support for the allegations that the plaintiff personally visited the defendant’s establishment and intends to return.

Required Responses and Possible Proceedings

Within 21 days of the order, the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel must each submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury. The plaintiff’s declaration must provide detailed support for the alleged visit and intent 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, meaning discovery aimed at determining whether the court has authority to hear the case. That discovery may address whether the plaintiff personally visited the establishment and intends to return. The court also stated that it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truth of the jurisdictional allegations, whether or not jurisdictional discovery occurs.

Order

The court did not grant or deny a motion and did not make a final ruling on the claims. It issued an order to show cause concerning supplemental jurisdiction and Article III standing. It warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. Pending the response, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56.