Johnson v. Mah
- Charles Breyer
- 3:21-cv-07520
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Mah, Judge Breyer ordered responses about federal jurisdiction before considering default judgment and the plaintiff’s claims.
The order directly affects Scott Johnson and his counsel by requiring them to submit explanations and sworn declarations within 21 days. It also affects the defendants because the court may dismiss the action or the Unruh Act claim based on jurisdictional issues.
What happened
In Johnson v. Mah, Scott Johnson asked for a default judgment seeking $4,000 under the California Unruh Act, $7,276.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why it should keep jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. It also required Johnson and his lawyer to submit sworn statements supporting the court’s jurisdiction over the disability claim, including whether Johnson visited the establishment and intends to return. The court said it might hold an in-person hearing to evaluate those statements.
Judge Charles R. Breyer gave Johnson and his lawyer 21 days to respond and warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order did not grant or deny the request for default judgment.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Mah · No. 3:21-cv-07520
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson moved for default judgment. He sought $4,000 in damages under the California Unruh Act, $7,276.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Unruh Act claim
The court explained that it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—jurisdiction over a related state-law claim when the case also includes a federal claim—in exceptional circumstances. The court stated that when a “high-frequency” litigant brings an Unruh Act claim together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim in federal court, that combination will typically qualify as an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. The court therefore ordered Johnson to show cause, meaning explain, why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.
Americans with Disabilities Act claim and required responses
The court stated that federal courts must independently determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. It required Johnson and his counsel to submit separate declarations sworn under penalty of perjury. Johnson’s declaration must support the jurisdictional allegations concerning his intent to return to the defendant’s establishment. Counsel’s declaration must describe in detail the investigation counsel conducted to verify that Johnson visited the establishment and intends to return. The court also stated that it may schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to test the truthfulness of the submitted jurisdictional allegations.
Disposition
Johnson and his counsel were required to respond within 21 days. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order itself did not state that the court granted or denied the motion for default judgment. Judge Charles R. Breyer entered the order on October 20, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.