Johnson v. Milhouse Properties LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Milhouse Properties LLC over alleged accessibility violations at Alex’s 49er Inn in San Jose, California. The complaint asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson seeks injunctive relief under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.

Johnson alleged that the federal court had original jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside a federal claim. The court explained that this authority is discretionary and may be declined in circumstances listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), including when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons not to exercise it.

Court’s Analysis

The court cited numerous California federal cases that declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims accompanying ADA accessibility claims. It also relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, which discussed the recent increase in these combined filings and California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims. The court stated that allowing these claims to proceed in federal court could undermine California’s reforms and the role of California courts in applying them.

The court concluded that this case presented the same considerations as the earlier similar case and the other cases it cited. It therefore did not yet decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Instead, it issued an order to show cause, meaning an order requiring a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken.

Order

The court ordered Johnson to file a response within 21 days explaining why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his lawyer must also include declarations providing all facts needed to determine whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).

The court stated that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint. The opinion does not state that the complaint was dismissed at that time, and it does not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act allegations.