Johnson v. CDK San Carlos LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06701
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. CDK San Carlos LLC, Judge Tigar ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the court should retain his state claim.
Scott Johnson must respond to the order within 21 days, identify the statutory damages he seeks, and provide the required information; his counsel must provide the required declaration information as well. CDK San Carlos LLC is the defendant in the case.
What happened
In Johnson v. CDK San Carlos LLC, Scott Johnson sued CDK San Carlos LLC over alleged accessibility violations involving a Dunkin’ restaurant, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court ordered Johnson to explain within 21 days why it should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. It also required him to identify the statutory damages sought and required Johnson and his counsel to provide information about whether he qualifies as a “high-frequency litigant.”
This was an order to show cause, not a final dismissal. The court warned that failing to submit a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. CDK San Carlos LLC · No. 4:21-cv-06701
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued CDK San Carlos LLC, alleging that a Dunkin’ restaurant in San Carlos, California, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Johnson asserted 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 state-law claims connected to claims over which it has original federal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), a court may decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim raises complex state-law issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court relied on its recent decision in a similar case and on decisions from other California federal courts. Those decisions addressed the increase in ADA accessibility cases paired with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages for the same conduct. The court stated that hearing such Unruh Act claims in federal court could undermine California’s procedural requirements and policies concerning construction-related accessibility claims. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson was required to respond within 21 days and identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel were also required to include declarations 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 court warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. Judge Jon S. Tigar did not dismiss the complaint in this order; he issued the order to show cause.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.