Johnson v. Savvy Cellar Wines, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-09163
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Savvy Cellar Wines, Judge Rogers ordered a response on whether to dismiss the Unruh Act claim by declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Scott Johnson and Savvy Cellar Wines.
What happened
In Scott Johnson v. Savvy Cellar Wines, the court ordered Johnson to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over his California Unruh Act claim. The court noted that this issue can arise when a high-frequency litigant brings an Unruh Act claim alongside an Americans with Disabilities Act claim in federal court.
Johnson must file a written response by May 26, 2022. The court has not yet dismissed the Unruh Act claim or made a final decision on whether to keep hearing it.
Judge Yvonne Rogers stated that failing to respond in writing will result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Savvy Cellar Wines, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-09163
- Yvonne Rogers
- May 12, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought claims in federal court against Savvy Cellar Wines. The order refers to an Unruh Act claim and an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The opinion does not describe the underlying facts of those claims.
Order to Show Cause
The court explained that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—in exceptional circumstances. It stated that when a high-frequency litigant brings a California Unruh Act claim with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, that combination typically can constitute an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.
The court ordered Johnson to show cause, meaning to explain in writing, why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because the case was still in its early stage. Johnson's written response is due no later than May 26, 2022.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the Unruh Act claim in this order and did not decide the underlying claims. It warned that failure to respond in writing will result in the Unruh Act claim being dismissed with prejudice. The order was signed by Judge Yvonne Rogers.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.