Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-09162
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Scott Johnson v. T&V Investment, Judge Tigar ordered a response on why the federal court should not decline jurisdiction over Johnson’s state claim.
Scott Johnson, T&V Investment, Inc., Chinh Do, and Johnson’s counsel were affected. Johnson and his counsel were required to provide information and declarations, and the complaint could be dismissed if no written response was filed.
What happened
In Scott Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc., Scott Johnson sued T&V Investment, Inc. and Chinh Do over alleged accessibility violations at a San Jose restaurant. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking an order requiring changes, statutory damages, and legal fees and costs.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why it should not decline to hear his Unruh Act claim. It also required Johnson and his lawyer to state the amount of damages sought and provide information about whether they meet California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant.” The court warned that failing to respond in writing would result in dismissal of the complaint.
This was an order requiring a response, not a final dismissal or decision on the claims. Judge Jon S. Tigar issued the order on April 27, 2022.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. T&V Investment, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-09162
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued T&V Investment, Inc. and Chinh Do concerning the Bun Bo Hue An Nam 2 restaurant in San Jose, California. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson sought injunctive relief under both statutes, 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 allows a federal court, in its discretion, to hear related state-law claims alongside claims within its original jurisdiction.
Court’s reasoning
The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in several circumstances, including when a state-law claim raises novel or complex issues, substantially predominates over the federal claim, or when exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court relied on the reasoning of numerous federal courts in California and on its earlier decision in a similar case. Those decisions identified an influx of ADA accessibility cases paired with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court explained that California had imposed additional procedural requirements on certain construction-related accessibility claims and that allowing related Unruh Act claims to proceed in federal court could undermine those reforms and the role of California courts. The court stated that the circumstances identified by the Ninth Circuit qualified as extraordinary circumstances and compelling reasons under § 1367(c)(4).
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 21 days from the order to respond. The response had to identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel also had to submit declarations containing all facts necessary for the court to determine whether they met California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court did not state that it was dismissing the complaint or declining jurisdiction at that time. It warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.