Johnson v. William S. Jarvis LLC

What the court addressed

The court issued an order to show cause, which requires parties to explain why the court should or should not take a particular action. The order concerned two jurisdictional issues in Scott Johnson’s case against William S. Jarvis LLC and other defendants:

1. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s California Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the power to hear a state-law claim connected to a federal claim. The court stated that, in certain cases involving a frequent litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim, exceptional circumstances may justify declining that jurisdiction. The court ordered Johnson to explain why it should keep the Unruh Act claim. It also asked whether he would rather dismiss the federal disability claim and pursue both claims in state court if the federal court declined to hear the Unruh Act claim.

2. Whether Johnson had Article III standing to bring the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete connection to the alleged injury and the requested relief. The court independently questioned whether Johnson intended to return to the defendant’s establishment and whether he had personally visited it.

Required submissions and possible discovery

Johnson and his counsel were ordered to submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury within 21 days. Johnson’s declaration had to provide detailed support for the allegations that he visited the establishment and intended to return. Counsel’s declaration had to describe in detail the investigation conducted to confirm those facts.

If the declarations were facially adequate, the defendant could choose to conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery would concern Johnson’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurred, the court stated that it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to examine the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.

Disposition and effect

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It ordered Johnson and his counsel to respond and warned that failure to respond or appear in person 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 United States District Judge Edward J. Davila on July 22, 2022.