Johnson v. DK Hawaiian BBQ, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-09272
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. DK Hawaiian BBQ, Judge Rogers ordered Johnson to explain why the court should not dismiss his Unruh Act claim.
Scott Johnson’s California Unruh Act claim was the subject of the order; DK Hawaiian BBQ, Inc. is the defendant in the case.
What happened
In Johnson v. DK Hawaiian BBQ, Inc., the court questioned whether it should continue hearing Scott Johnson’s California Unruh Act claim alongside his Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The court said that a frequent litigant’s Unruh Act claim combined with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim can be an exceptional circumstance allowing a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. The court had not dismissed the claim in this order.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Johnson to respond in writing by May 26, 2022. The order says the Unruh Act claim will be dismissed with prejudice if he does not respond in writing.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. DK Hawaiian BBQ, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-09272
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 12, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California Unruh Act claim against DK Hawaiian BBQ, Inc. The opinion describes Johnson as a “high-frequency” litigant but provides no further details about the claims’ factual basis.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—is discretionary. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a court may decline that jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. Relying on Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California decisions, the court stated that a high-frequency litigant’s Unruh Act claim brought with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim typically presents such an exceptional circumstance. The court also noted that the case was still at an early stage.
Order
The court issued an order to show cause, requiring Johnson to explain why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Johnson must file a written response by May 26, 2022. The order states that failure to respond in writing will result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim with prejudice. This order itself does not state that the claim was dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.