Gomez v. Domaine Carneros, Ltd
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-09600
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gomez v. Domaine Carneros, Judge Chhabria ordered responses about supplemental jurisdiction and standing before deciding whether the case should proceed.
Andres Gomez, his counsel, and Domaine Carneros, Ltd.; the case remains subject to the plaintiff’s and counsel’s required declarations and the court’s jurisdictional review.
What happened
In Gomez v. Domaine Carneros, Ltd., Andres Gomez sued Domaine Carneros under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court questioned whether it should keep the state-law claim and whether Gomez had standing to pursue the federal claim.
The court ordered Gomez and his counsel to submit separate sworn declarations within 21 days. Gomez must provide details supporting his alleged visit to the establishment and intent to return; counsel must explain how they investigated those facts. The defendant may seek jurisdiction-related discovery, and the court will likely hold an in-person hearing about the truth of the allegations.
Judge Vince Chhabria did not dismiss the case in this order. He warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice, vacated other deadlines temporarily, and relieved the parties from General Order 56 requirements for the time being.
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Domaine Carneros, Ltd · No. 3:21-cv-09600
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Andres Gomez brought an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim and a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against Domaine Carneros, Ltd. The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required the plaintiff to explain why the court should not take specified action.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The court cited the rule allowing federal courts to decline that authority in exceptional circumstances and noted decisions involving a “high-frequency” litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim with an ADA claim.
The court also independently questioned whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim because Gomez might lack Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a sufficient connection to the alleged injury and the requested relief. The court specifically sought evidence concerning Gomez’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment and whether he personally visited it in the first place.
Required Responses and Possible Proceedings
Within 21 days, Gomez and his counsel must each submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury. Gomez’s declaration must substantiate, in detail, the allegations concerning his visit and intent to return. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation conducted to ensure that Gomez visited the establishment and intends to return.
If the declarations are facially adequate, Domaine Carneros may conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning Gomez’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurs, the court stated that it will likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the plaintiff and counsel to respond to the order to show cause. The court did not decide in this order whether to dismiss the Unruh Act claim or whether Gomez has Article III standing. It warned that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. While the response is pending, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.