Garcia v. Kim
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-09789
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Kim, Judge Chhabria ordered responses about jurisdiction and warned that nonresponse would lead to dismissal with prejudice.
The order directly affects Orlando Garcia, his counsel, Jonggan Kim and the other defendants, and Garcia’s ADA and California Unruh Act claims.
What happened
In Garcia v. Kim, the court questioned whether it should keep the plaintiff’s California Unruh Act claim alongside his Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It also questioned whether the plaintiff had standing—the legal right to bring the federal claim—because of uncertainty about whether he visited the defendant’s establishment and intended to return.
The court ordered the plaintiff and his lawyer to submit separate sworn declarations within 21 days. The declarations must provide details about the visit, the plaintiff’s intent to return, and the lawyer’s investigation. The defendant may conduct discovery about those issues, and the court may hold an in-person hearing. Other deadlines were canceled temporarily.
Judge Vince Chhabria did not yet dismiss the case or decide whether the court has jurisdiction. He ordered the parties to show why the Unruh Act claim should not be dismissed and why the ADA claim should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The order states that failing to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Kim · No. 3:21-cv-09789
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Jonggan Kim and other defendants, asserting a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court noted that when a high-frequency litigant brings an Unruh Act claim in federal court together with an ADA claim, that combination will typically be an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims together with a federal claim.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Garcia to explain why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court separately ordered Garcia to explain why the ADA claim should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, meaning the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury.
Garcia and his counsel must each submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury within 21 days. Garcia’s declaration must provide details supporting his alleged intent to return to the defendant’s establishment and must substantiate that he visited the establishment in the first place. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation conducted to confirm that Garcia visited the establishment and intends to return.
Possible Further Proceedings and Disposition
If the declarations appear facially adequate, the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery about Garcia’s intent to return and whether he personally visited the establishment. The court also stated that it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.
Judge Vince Chhabria did not make a final ruling on jurisdiction or dismiss the case in this order. The court vacated all other deadlines temporarily and relieved the parties temporarily from the requirements of General Order 56. The order states that failure to respond within 21 days will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.