Garcia v. Orr
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-01137
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Orr, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered responses about standing and supplemental jurisdiction before deciding whether the case should continue.
Orlando Garcia and his counsel must provide sworn declarations addressing standing and supplemental jurisdiction; the defendants may receive limited jurisdictional discovery if the declarations are facially adequate. The case was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Garcia v. Orr, Orlando Garcia sued Mary Louise Orr and others under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants had asked to resume discovery about Garcia’s standing, and Garcia did not oppose that request.
The court required Garcia and his lawyer to provide separate sworn statements supporting the allegations about Garcia’s visit, his intent to return, and the lawyer’s investigation before filing. They also had to provide information relevant to whether Garcia is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law.
Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the responses within 21 days. He said the case could be dismissed without prejudice if they were not timely filed, allowed for possible limited jurisdictional discovery, and paused the existing case deadlines while awaiting a response.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Orr · No. 4:22-cv-01137
- Jeffrey White
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia brought claims against Mary Louise Orr and others under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The ADA claim seeks injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act claim allows damages. On August 8, 2022, the defendants filed an administrative motion to lift a discovery stay imposed by General Order 56 so they could investigate Garcia’s standing to sue. Garcia did not file an opposition, which was due August 12, 2022.
Jurisdictional concerns
The court explained that federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has Article III standing for each claim and each type of relief sought. The court also noted that federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court identified concerns about using ADA claims together with Unruh Act claims to avoid limits that may apply to those state-law claims.
Order
The court ordered Garcia and his counsel to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. They must submit separate declarations, sworn under penalty of perjury, supporting the jurisdictional allegations, including Garcia’s initial visit to the establishment, his intent to return, and counsel’s pre-filing investigation. If the declarations are facially adequate, the defendants may conduct limited jurisdictional discovery about whether Garcia visited the establishment and intended to return. The court also reserved the possibility of an evidentiary hearing on standing.
The court separately ordered Garcia and his counsel to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Their declarations must provide information needed to determine whether Garcia is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law. The response was due within 21 days. The order states that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if Garcia and his counsel failed to respond on time. It did not itself dismiss the case or decide whether Garcia has standing. While awaiting the response, the deadlines under General Order 56 were tolled. Judge Jeffrey S. White signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.