Johnson v. LPLW, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that he encountered unlawful barriers at places of business operated by LPLW, LLC. Johnson is represented by The Center for Disability Access, which the opinion says describes itself as a “division” of Potter Handy, LLP.

LPLW moved to stay initial disclosure and other discovery-related requirements under General Order 56 while a related California state-court case against Potter Handy LLP was pending. The opinion states that the state case had been dismissed by the time of this order.

Motions and requested relief

LPLW alternatively asked the court to require Johnson and his counsel to submit sworn declarations supporting the jurisdictional allegations concerning Johnson’s intent to return to LPLW’s places of business. LPLW also sought details supporting Johnson’s allegations that he had visited those businesses and asked the court to stay other activity until it received and reviewed the declarations.

Ruling

The court denied the stay, stating that a stay based on the state-court case would not have been warranted and that the state case had been dismissed. The court did not impose an extended or indefinite stay.

The court ordered Johnson to file papers by October 1, 2022, showing why the court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction over his California Unruh Act claim under the principles discussed in Arroyo v. Rosas. The court also directed that Johnson’s response either include the requested declarations or show why the declarations should not be required or cannot be provided. The court noted that counsel is ordinarily presumed to have complied with the obligations imposed by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that a defendant seeking to test complaint allegations or obtain additional information ordinarily uses discovery.