Whitaker v. Ngin
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-03087
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Ngin, Judge Chhabria ordered responses about federal standing and state-law jurisdiction, warning that nonresponse would dismiss the case with prejudice.
The plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel must submit separate sworn declarations within 21 days; the defendant may conduct jurisdictional discovery, and the case’s other deadlines are temporarily vacated.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Ngin, the plaintiff asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California Unruh Act claim against the defendant’s establishment.
The court questioned whether it should continue handling the state-law claim and whether the plaintiff had the required constitutional standing for the federal claim. It ordered the plaintiff and counsel to provide sworn declarations about the plaintiff’s visit to the establishment, intent to return, and counsel’s investigation.
Judge Chhabria gave the plaintiff and counsel 21 days to respond. He said the defendant could seek discovery about those jurisdictional issues and that the court would likely hold an in-person hearing. The court vacated other deadlines temporarily and warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Ngin · No. 3:21-cv-03087
- Vince Chhabria
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
The plaintiff asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The order states that federal courts may decline to hear a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. It explains that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings an Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, that combination will typically justify declining supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case.
Jurisdictional concerns
The court ordered the plaintiff to show cause, meaning to explain why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court also stated that it has an independent duty to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even if no party challenges it. It therefore ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing, which requires a plaintiff to show a qualifying injury and a sufficient connection to the challenged conduct.
The plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel were each required to submit a separate declaration sworn under penalty of perjury. The plaintiff’s declaration had to provide support for the allegation that the plaintiff intended to return to the defendant’s establishment and had to describe in detail whether the plaintiff had personally visited the establishment. Counsel’s declaration had to describe in detail the investigation conducted to verify that the plaintiff had visited the establishment and intended to return.
Possible discovery and hearing
The order states that, if the declarations appeared facially adequate, the defendant could choose to conduct jurisdictional discovery. That discovery could address the plaintiff’s intent to return and whether the plaintiff had actually visited the establishment. Whether or not discovery occurred, the court said it would likely schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to examine the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.
Deadlines and order
The plaintiff and counsel had to respond within 21 days. The court stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. In the meantime, the court vacated all other deadlines and temporarily relieved the parties of the requirements of General Order 56. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on August 26, 2022. The order did not decide the merits of the ADA or Unruh Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.