Johnson v. Gin
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-07345
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Gin, Judge Tigar ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the court should not decline jurisdiction over his state-law disability claim.
The order directly affects plaintiff Scott Johnson and his counsel, who must respond and provide the required information. It also concerns defendants Philip Gin and Matthew Coit Entertainment LLC because the court is considering whether to hear Johnson’s Unruh Act claim in this federal case.
What happened
In Johnson v. Gin, Scott Johnson sued Philip Gin and Matthew Coit Entertainment LLC over alleged accessibility violations at Route 92 Sports Bar. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court questioned whether it should hear the Unruh Act claim along with the federal claim. It discussed cases involving similar disability-access lawsuits and California’s additional requirements for certain state-law accessibility claims.
Judge Tigar ordered Johnson to respond within 21 days and explain why the court should not decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson and his lawyer must also provide information about the damages sought and whether they meet California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant; the court stated that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Gin · No. 4:21-cv-07345
- Jon Tigar
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson filed this action against Philip Gin and Matthew Coit Entertainment LLC. The complaint alleges that Route 92 Sports Bar in San Mateo, California, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson seeks an injunction under both laws, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint asserts federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Jurisdictional issue
Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court explained that it may decline supplemental jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, the state-law claim substantially predominates or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court discussed recent decisions declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims filed alongside ADA accessibility claims. Those decisions cited California’s additional procedural requirements for certain construction-related accessibility claims and concerns that filing such claims in federal court could bypass those requirements and interfere with California courts’ role in applying state policy. The court stated that this case presented the same considerations as a recent case in which it declined jurisdiction over similar Unruh Act claims.
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 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 the facts needed 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 order does not state that the court had already declined jurisdiction or dismissed the complaint. It states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.