Johnson v. Rotisabjiinc

Background

The plaintiff asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Act. The court explained that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a related state-law claim—when exceptional circumstances exist. Citing Ninth Circuit and Northern District of California decisions, the court stated that a high-frequency litigant’s Unruh Act claim filed alongside an ADA claim will typically present such an exceptional circumstance.

The court also stated that federal courts must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even if no party challenges it. It ordered the plaintiff to show cause, or explain, why the ADA claim should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing requires a plaintiff to establish the facts needed to invoke the federal court’s authority, including here the plaintiff’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment.

Orders to the Parties

The plaintiff must explain why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. If the court declines that jurisdiction, the plaintiff must also inform the court whether he would prefer to dismiss the ADA claim and pursue the ADA and Unruh Act claims in state court.

The plaintiff and his counsel must each submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury. The plaintiff’s declaration must provide support for the allegations that he intends to return to the defendant’s establishment and must describe in detail whether he personally visited it. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation conducted to confirm that the plaintiff visited the establishment and intends to return.

If the declarations are facially adequate, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery concerning the plaintiff’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. The court stated that it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations, whether or not discovery occurs.

Disposition and Effect

This order did not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims and did not yet dismiss the action. Judge Edward J. Davila ordered the plaintiff and counsel to respond within 21 days. The order states that failure to respond and failure to appear in person will 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.