Johnson v. Manion
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Manion, Judge Tigar ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the court should retain his Unruh Act claim alongside his Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Scott Johnson and his counsel must respond to the order within 21 days, including information about damages and high-frequency-litigant status. The complaint may be dismissed if no written response is filed.
What happened
In Johnson v. Manion, Scott Johnson sued Majid Manion and Sara Manion over alleged accessibility violations at Sara’s Kitchen restaurant, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He requested an injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should keep the Unruh Act claim because state-law issues may predominate and California courts have an important role in applying the state’s accessibility-claim requirements. The court had not yet decided whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.
Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to respond within 21 days, identify the statutory damages he seeks, and provide declarations about whether he and his lawyer meet California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant. The order states that failing to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Manion · No. 4:21-cv-06224
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Majid Manion and Sara Manion, alleging that conduct relating to the Sara’s Kitchen restaurant in Santa Clara, California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). Johnson sought injunctive relief under both laws, nominal damages, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. The defendants’ defaults were entered on December 6, 2021.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims—is not an automatic right. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, the state-law claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court noted that other federal courts in California had declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought with ADA accessibility claims. It discussed the recent increase in these cases, California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims, and concerns that filing in federal court could bypass those requirements and undermine California’s policies. The court stated that its recent decision in a similar case found the same exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson must file a response within 21 days of the order, identify the amount of statutory damages sought, and include declarations from Johnson and his counsel providing the facts needed to determine whether they satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code § 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The order states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not decide whether the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.