Whitaker v. Harshraj Investments, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-08029
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Harshraj Investments, Judge Chhabria ordered responses on supplemental jurisdiction and standing, warning that nonresponse would lead to dismissal with prejudice.
The plaintiff, the plaintiff’s counsel, and Harshraj Investments, Inc.; the order required sworn declarations from the plaintiff and counsel and gave the defendant a possible opportunity for jurisdictional discovery.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Harshraj Investments, Inc., the plaintiff brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court questioned whether it should continue hearing the state-law claim alongside the federal claim.
The court also questioned whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the federal claim. It ordered the plaintiff to explain, under oath, the plaintiff’s intent to return to the establishment and whether the plaintiff actually visited it. The plaintiff’s lawyer also had to explain the investigation conducted to confirm those facts.
The court ordered the plaintiff and counsel to respond within 21 days. Judge Chhabria said the defendant could seek discovery about those jurisdictional facts and that the court would likely hold an in-person hearing. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice, while vacating other deadlines temporarily.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Harshraj Investments, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-08029
- Vince Chhabria
- July 6, 2022
Nature of the order
The court issued an order to show cause, which requires the parties to explain why the court should or should not take a particular action. The court had not yet dismissed the case or decided the merits of the claims.
California Unruh Act claim
The plaintiff asserted a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim along with a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court stated that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in exceptional circumstances. Citing Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California decisions, the court said that a high-frequency litigant’s assertion of an Unruh Act claim alongside an ADA claim will typically qualify as such a circumstance. The court ordered the plaintiff to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
ADA standing and required declarations
The court also ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury to invoke federal-court jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel were each required to submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury. The plaintiff’s declaration had to provide factual support for the plaintiff’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment. It also had to provide detailed support for the allegation that the plaintiff visited the establishment in the first place. The court referred to allegations made by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys concerning the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients.
Counsel’s declaration had to describe in detail the investigation conducted to ensure that the plaintiff had visited the establishment and intended to return.
Possible jurisdictional discovery and hearing
If the declarations were facially adequate, the defendant would have the option to conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery could address the plaintiff’s intent to return and whether the plaintiff personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurred, the court said it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.
Deadlines and warning
The plaintiff and counsel had 21 days from the order to respond. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. In the meantime, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. The order was signed by Judge Vince Chhabria.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.