Johnson v. Shinde
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-01098
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Scott Johnson v. Shinde, Judge Chhabria dismissed Johnson’s Unruh Act claim after declining supplemental jurisdiction.
The ruling affects Scott Johnson’s Unruh Act claim against Kirankumar Shinde and the other named defendants; the court declined to retain supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.
What happened
In Scott Johnson v. Kirankumar Shinde, the court considered whether to keep jurisdiction over Scott Johnson’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The court said the case was still in its early stages, so keeping the claim would not promote efficiency, convenience, fairness, or respect for California courts. It also found that the circumstances involved the exceptional situation described in federal law for declining supplemental jurisdiction.
The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim. Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the filing of a status report by October 3, 2022.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Shinde · No. 3:22-cv-01098
- Vince Chhabria
- July 6, 2022
Background
The opinion addresses Scott Johnson’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court’s order concerns whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning federal authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside claims within federal jurisdiction.
Reasoning
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It relied on the case’s early stage and concluded that judicial economy, convenience, fairness to the litigants, and respect for state courts did not favor retaining jurisdiction. The court also determined that the facts presented the type of exceptional circumstances described in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), citing the opinion’s discussion of frequent ADA and Unruh Act filings seeking federal jurisdiction to avoid California procedural barriers.
Disposition
The order is titled “Order Dismissing Unruh Act Claim,” and the court dismissed that claim. The court also ordered that a status report be filed by October 3, 2022. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.