Johnson v. Fischer
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-05928
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Fischer, Judge White ordered responses addressing standing and whether the federal court should hear the state-law claim.
Scott Johnson and his counsel must respond within 21 days; Robert S. Fischer may conduct limited jurisdictional discovery if the court finds the declarations facially adequate.
What happened
In Johnson v. Fischer, Scott Johnson sued Robert S. Fischer under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court vacated the scheduled case management conference and questioned whether Johnson had a sufficient connection to seek the requested relief in federal court.
The court ordered Johnson and his lawyer to submit sworn statements about Johnson’s initial visit, his intent to return, and the lawyer’s investigation before filing the case. They also must provide information needed to determine whether Johnson is a “high-frequency litigant” under California law. If the statements appear adequate, Fischer may conduct limited discovery about Johnson’s visit and intent to return, and the court may hold a hearing.
Judge White gave Johnson and his lawyer 21 days to respond to both questions. The court has not yet dismissed the case or decided the claims; it warned that failure to respond on time would result in dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Fischer · No. 4:21-cv-05928
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought claims against Robert S. Fischer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The ADA claim sought injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act claim allowed a request for damages. The matter was scheduled for a case management conference on September 30, 2022.
Court’s jurisdictional concerns
The court vacated the case management conference and issued an order to show cause, meaning it required the parties to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court emphasized that federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, even when no party challenges jurisdiction.
The court questioned whether Johnson had Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal connection to the dispute and requested relief. The court ordered Johnson and his counsel to submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury supporting the jurisdictional allegations. The declarations must address Johnson’s initial visit to the establishment, his intent to return, and counsel’s investigation before filing the case.
The court also questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear certain related state-law claims along with federal claims. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority stating that circumstances involving ADA and Unruh Act claims may be exceptional enough for a federal court to decline that authority. Johnson and his counsel must provide information needed to determine whether Johnson is a “high-frequency litigant” under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
Possible next steps and disposition
If the declarations are facially adequate, Fischer may conduct limited jurisdictional discovery about whether Johnson visited the establishment and intended to return. The court also reserved the right to hold an evidentiary hearing on standing.
Johnson and his counsel had 21 days to respond. The order states that if Johnson and his counsel failed to respond on time, the court would dismiss the case without prejudice. The order itself did not dismiss the case, decide the merits of either claim, or determine whether the court would retain the Unruh Act claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.