Johnson v. GRHA Group, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued GRHA Group, LLC, asserting a claim under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required the plaintiff to explain why the court should take certain jurisdictional actions before proceeding.

Unruh Act Claim and Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in a case that includes a federal claim. The court stated that federal courts may decline that authority in exceptional circumstances and ordered the plaintiff to show why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

ADA Claim and Article III Standing

The court separately questioned whether the plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue the ADA claim. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal stake in the dispute. The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a declaration, sworn under penalty of perjury, substantiating the allegations that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s establishment and intends to return.

The court also ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to submit a separate sworn declaration describing in detail the investigation counsel conducted to ensure that the plaintiff visited the establishment and intends to return. The order referred to allegations made by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the Potter Handy firm and its clients and stated that the plaintiff’s declaration must substantiate, in detail, the allegations that the plaintiff visited the establishment.

Potential Jurisdictional Discovery and Hearing

If the declarations were facially adequate, the defendant would have the option to conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery could address the plaintiff’s intent to return and whether the plaintiff personally visited the establishment. The court stated that, whether or not discovery occurred, it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truth of the jurisdictional allegations.

Order

Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the plaintiff and counsel 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. The opinion is an order to show cause and does not state that the action or either claim was dismissed at that time.