Johnson v. DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:22-cv-00648
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc., Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to explain why the court should retain his Unruh Act claim.
Scott Johnson and his counsel, who must respond to the order and provide the requested information; the defendant is affected by the court’s potential decision concerning the Unruh Act claim.
What happened
In Johnson v. DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc., Scott Johnson sued over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act involving a store in San Jose, California.
The court ordered Johnson to explain within 21 days why it should keep the Unruh Act claim. He must identify the statutory damages sought, and he and his lawyer must provide information about whether he is a frequently filing claimant under California law. The court warned that failing to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the complaint.
This was an order to provide information, not a final decision on the claims. Judge Tigar had not yet decided whether to decline jurisdiction over the state-law claim.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-00648
- Jon Tigar
- May 2, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against DL Vua Kho Bo & O Mai Inc. He alleged that conduct involving the defendant’s store in San Jose, California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). Johnson sought an injunction under both laws, 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 is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, a state-law claim raises unusual or complex state-law issues, substantially outweighs the federal claim, all federal claims have been dismissed, or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court relied on decisions from other California federal courts and on its earlier decision in a similar case. Those decisions addressed the recent increase in cases combining ADA accessibility allegations with Unruh Act claims seeking statutory damages. The court stated that this pattern could undermine California’s procedural requirements and the role of California state courts. It concluded that this case presented the same considerations as those earlier cases.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson had 21 days from the order to file a response. 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 satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code §§ 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The court did not yet rule that it would decline jurisdiction or dismiss the complaint. It stated that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order was signed by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.