Johnson v. Gamba
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-06708
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Gamba, Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to explain why the court should retain his Unruh Act claim or face dismissal.
Scott Johnson and his counsel must provide the required response, damages information, and declarations. The order could result in dismissal of the complaint if no written response is filed.
What happened
Johnson v. Gamba concerns Scott Johnson’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act about an Edward Jones branch in Belmont, California.
Johnson sought an accessibility order, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. The court questioned whether it should keep the state-law claim because California federal courts have often declined to hear similar Unruh Act claims alongside disability-access claims.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Johnson to explain within 21 days why the court should not decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson and his counsel must also provide the requested damages information and declarations; the court warned that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Gamba · No. 4:21-cv-06708
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against Diane J. Gamba on August 30, 2021. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Edward Jones branch in Belmont, California. He requested injunctive relief under the ADA and the Unruh Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.
Johnson asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims together with federal claims. The court explained that federal law permits it to decline that jurisdiction in several circumstances, including when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to do so.
Court’s concerns
The court discussed decisions from federal courts in California declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in similar disability-access cases. It also relied on a recent decision in a related case in which this court found extraordinary circumstances and compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction. Those decisions concerned the increase in ADA cases paired with Unruh Act claims and the potential effect of federal filings on California’s procedural requirements and state-court role in handling these claims.
Order
The court did not yet decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim. Instead, it ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why the court should not decline jurisdiction over that claim. Johnson had to file a written response within 21 days of the order and identify the amount of statutory damages sought.
The court also ordered Johnson and his counsel to include declarations providing the facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” The court stated that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not state that the complaint had already been dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.