Johnson v. Vegetarian Golden Bamboo, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson filed this action against Vegetarian Golden Bamboo, Inc., concerning the Golden Bamboo restaurant in San Jose, California. The complaint alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson seeks 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 to hear related state-law claims, but the court explained that using this jurisdiction is discretionary rather than automatic.

Court’s analysis

The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), which permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction in circumstances including novel or complex state-law issues, state claims that substantially predominate, dismissal of all claims within the court’s original jurisdiction, or other exceptional circumstances with compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.

The court relied on numerous California federal-court decisions declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims accompanying ADA accessibility claims. It also relied on its recent decision in a prior related proceeding, which addressed the increase in federal ADA accessibility cases paired with Unruh Act claims. The court noted that California had imposed additional procedural requirements on construction-related accessibility claims and that federal filings could avoid those requirements. It concluded that this situation presented extraordinary circumstances and that there were compelling reasons to consider declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

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 lawyer also had to provide 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 court warned that failure to file a written response would result in dismissal of the complaint. The order itself did not dismiss the complaint or finally decide whether the court would retain the Unruh Act claim. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.