Whitaker v. Jeong
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-02362
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Whitaker v. Jeong, Judge Rogers ordered Whitaker to explain his ADA standing and why the court should retain his state-law claim.
Brian Whitaker, whose federal ADA claim and state Unruh Act claim were questioned; the defendants were affected because the court did not yet enter the recommended default judgment.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Jeong, the court questioned whether Brian Whitaker had shown the required connection to bring his Americans with Disabilities Act claim in federal court. The court also questioned whether it should keep his California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.
The court ordered Whitaker to respond in writing by October 7, 2022. It said the complaint offered only general statements about his intent to return to the defendant’s establishment and did not provide supporting facts. The court warned that, if Whitaker did not respond, it could treat that failure as a concession that he lacked standing and dismiss the entire case.
Judge Yvonne Rogers did not enter a final dismissal or default judgment in this order. Instead, she required Whitaker to explain why the ADA claim should not be dismissed with leave to amend, why the request for default judgment should not be denied as moot, and why the court should continue hearing the Unruh Act claim.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Jeong · No. 4:21-cv-02362
- Yvonne Rogers
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker sued Eva C. Jeong and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case was reassigned to Judge Yvonne Rogers after Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued a report recommending default judgment. The order does not state that default judgment had been entered.
ADA standing
The court questioned whether Whitaker had Article III standing, meaning a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. For ADA injunctive relief, the court explained that a plaintiff generally must show either a genuine intent to return to a noncompliant public accommodation where he would likely face a repeated injury, or that he was deterred from visiting because of previously encountered disability-related barriers.
The court said Whitaker’s complaint contained conclusory statements about standing and no factual support for an intent to return under either theory. It noted that the record raised concerns because Whitaker had not diligently prosecuted the case and had reused a boilerplate complaint. The court stated that any default judgment would be void if subject-matter jurisdiction were lacking.
Unruh Act claim and order to show cause
The court also considered whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction, which is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims. It said exceptional circumstances appeared to support declining jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, citing decisions involving high-frequency litigants and the record concerning Whitaker’s prosecution of the case. The court ordered Whitaker to explain in writing why it should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction.
The order required a written response by October 7, 2022. It directed Whitaker to show why the ADA complaint should not be dismissed with leave to amend and why the motion for default judgment should not be denied as moot. It further stated that failing to respond would be treated as a concession that Whitaker lacked standing and that dismissal of the entire action was appropriate. The order itself was an order to show cause, not a final ruling dismissing the case or denying the motion for default judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.