Johnson v. Pho Hanoi, Inc.
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-00537
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Pho Hanoi, Judge Rogers dismissed the ADA claim as moot and ordered a response before potentially dismissing the remaining state claim.
Scott Johnson’s ADA claim was dismissed. His Unruh Act claim remained subject to a seven-day response order, with dismissal threatened if he failed to respond; Pho Hanoi, Inc. remained the defendant in the action.
What happened
In Johnson v. Pho Hanoi, Inc., Scott Johnson notified the court that his request for an order requiring access under the Americans with Disabilities Act had become moot. The court said that this was the only remedy available under the federal law, so the entire ADA claim was dismissed.
The only remaining claim was under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court questioned whether it should continue hearing that state-law claim after dismissing the related federal claim, and it also identified Johnson’s status as a “high-frequency” litigant as a possible exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal. The court ordered Johnson to explain in writing within seven days why the federal court should continue hearing the claim. If he did not respond on time, the court said it would dismiss the Unruh Act claim and, as a result, the case.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued this order to show cause; the order did not itself dismiss the Unruh Act claim.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Pho Hanoi, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-00537
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Pho Hanoi, Inc. The opinion states that Johnson filed a notice saying his claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act had become moot. Injunctive relief is a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct. The court stated that injunctive relief was the only remedy available under the ADA in this case.
Rulings and order
The court dismissed Johnson’s entire ADA claim because it was moot, meaning that the requested relief was no longer an active dispute.
The remaining claim was brought under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court explained that federal courts generally decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear a related state-law claim—after dismissing the parallel federal claim. The court also stated that Johnson’s status as a “high-frequency” litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim constituted an exceptional circumstance that could justify dismissal.
The court ordered Johnson to respond in writing within seven days, explaining how continuing the case would serve judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts. The court stated that failure to respond on time would result in dismissal of the Unruh Act claim and, by extension, the entire action. The order did not state that the Unruh Act claim had already been dismissed.
Disposition
The ADA claim was dismissed. The court issued an order to show cause concerning supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and warned that the claim, and therefore the action, would be dismissed if Johnson did not timely respond.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.