Johnson v. Constantia Capital Limited

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a person with disabilities who requires a wheelchair. He sued Constantia Capital Limited and other defendants, identified as the owners of King Chuan Restaurant, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that, during two visits to the restaurant in 2021, he encountered a lack of wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces, sales counters, paths of travel, and restrooms. His first amended complaint sought an injunction under the ADA and damages under the Unruh Act.

Unruh Act Claim

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for dismissal of the Unruh Act claim, asking the court not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court hearing a federal claim to also hear a related state-law claim. The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas, which held that California’s heightened procedural requirements for Unruh Act claims by “high-frequency litigants” can create exceptional circumstances allowing a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction.

The defendants asserted, and Johnson did not deny, that he is a high-frequency litigant who would otherwise be subject to those heightened requirements if the case were filed in state court. The court concluded that the same exceptional circumstances and concerns about respect for California’s rules were present. It therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim. In its conclusion, the court stated that the claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling the case in state court. The court noted that the merits of the case had not yet been litigated.

Request to Stay the ADA Claim

The defendants also moved to stay, or pause, any remaining claims while a California state-court lawsuit brought by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys against Potter Handy LLP was pending. That lawsuit alleged that the firm had filed thousands of ADA and Unruh Act claims against small businesses to obtain quick settlements in violation of California law. The opinion states that Potter Handy represented Johnson in this case, that Johnson was mentioned in the complaint in that lawsuit, and that Johnson was not a defendant there.

The court denied the motion to stay. It found that the defendants had not shown that the other lawsuit would conclude within a reasonable time, had not addressed what hardship a stay would cause Johnson, and had not sufficiently shown that Johnson would be unable to pursue his remaining ADA claim even if he were required to testify in the other case. The court granted the unopposed request for judicial notice of the Potter Handy lawsuit for purposes of deciding the stay motion.

Order to Show Cause Regarding Standing

The court separately ordered Johnson to show cause why his remaining ADA claim should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. The court identified Johnson’s vague allegations in the first amended complaint concerning his plan to return to King Chuan Restaurant. Johnson and his counsel were ordered to respond within 21 days. The order states that failure to respond will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim was granted, and that claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling the case in state court. The motion to stay the remaining ADA claim was denied. The request for judicial notice was granted. The court did not dismiss the ADA claim in this order; instead, it required a response addressing possible dismissal for lack of standing.