Johnson v. High Noon Pizza, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson sued High Noon Pizza, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the Round Table Pizza restaurant in San Jose, California. He sought injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint 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 a court’s discretionary authority to hear state-law claims connected to a federal claim. The court explained that federal law permits a district court to decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law issue is novel or complex, the state claim substantially predominates over the federal claim, all federal claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court cited decisions from federal courts in California that declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in similar accessibility cases. It also relied on the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims. According to the court, allowing these claims to proceed in federal court could create an end-run around those requirements, undermine California’s reforms, and deprive state courts of their role in carrying out the policies behind those reforms.

The court stated that the case presented the same considerations as its earlier decision in a similar case and other California federal cases. It therefore ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Order

Johnson must file a response within 21 days of the order. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel must also submit declarations containing all facts needed for the court to determine whether they satisfy the California statutory definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” The court warned that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.

The order did not state that the court was declining supplemental jurisdiction, did not dismiss the complaint at that time, and did not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act allegations. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.