Johnson v. Peppin Properties LLC
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06406
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Peppin Properties LLC, Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to explain why the court should keep his Unruh Act claim.
Scott Johnson, Peppin Properties LLC, Panda Dumpling Inc., and Johnson’s counsel; the order concerns whether the court will continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
What happened
Scott Johnson sued Peppin Properties LLC and Panda Dumpling Inc., alleging that a restaurant violated 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 hear the Unruh Act claim alongside the federal disability claim. It cited other California federal cases and explained that these cases can avoid California requirements designed for certain disability-access claims.
Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to respond within 21 days, state the amount of statutory damages sought, and provide information about whether he qualifies as a high-frequency litigant under California law. The order warns that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Peppin Properties LLC · No. 4:21-cv-06406
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Peppin Properties LLC and Panda Dumpling Inc. He alleged that the Panda Dumpling restaurant in San Carlos, California, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). He sought an ADA injunction, relief under the Unruh Act, nominal damages, Unruh Act statutory damages, 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 related state-law claims together with federal claims. The court explained that it may decline that jurisdiction when, among other reasons, a state-law claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court cited decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought with ADA claims. It also relied on the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of California’s additional procedural requirements for certain construction-related accessibility claims. According to the court, the relative ease of filing these cases in federal court can avoid those state requirements and interfere with California’s policies and the role of its state courts.
Order
The court did not yet rule that it would decline supplemental jurisdiction. Instead, it ordered Johnson to show cause—that is, to explain—why the court should not decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson must file a response within 21 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel must also submit declarations providing the 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. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.