Johnson v. Cohn
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-08341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Cohn, Judge Tigar ordered a response explaining why the court should keep the state-law claim.
Scott Johnson, the named defendants, and Johnson’s counsel were required to respond; the order specifically concerned whether the court would continue hearing Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.
What happened
Scott Johnson sued Stephen T. Cohn, Andrea G. Cohn, Gary D. Cohn, and The BHAS Lady, LLC, alleging that the East Meets West Bowls restaurant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring changes, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The court questioned whether it should hear the Unruh Act claim alongside the federal disability claim. It ordered Johnson to explain why the court should not decline to hear that state-law claim and gave him 21 days to respond. The court also required Johnson and his lawyer to provide declarations addressing whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant,” and required Johnson to identify the statutory damages he seeks.
Judge Jon S. Tigar warned that failing to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not dismiss the complaint; it required a response before the court decides whether to continue hearing the Unruh Act claim.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Cohn · No. 4:21-cv-08341
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against Stephen T. Cohn, Andrea G. Cohn, Gary D. Cohn, and The BHAS Lady, LLC. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act concerning the East Meets West Bowls restaurant in Belmont, California. He sought injunctive relief under the ADA and 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 claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case as federal claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when a state-law claim raises a novel or complex issue, substantially predominates over the federal claim, all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court discussed decisions declining to hear Unruh Act claims filed alongside ADA accessibility claims. It relied on concerns that these filings can avoid California’s additional procedural requirements for construction-related accessibility claims and undermine the role of California courts in applying those requirements. The court stated that this case presented the same considerations as a recent related case and other similar cases.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson had to file a response within 21 days of the order. The response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought.
Johnson and his counsel also had to include declarations providing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2). The court warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
The opinion is an order to show cause, not a final ruling declining jurisdiction or dismissing the complaint. The court did not state in this order whether it ultimately would dismiss the Unruh Act claim or the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.