Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC
- Charles Breyer
- 3:22-cv-01386
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC, Judge Breyer ordered responses on supplemental and subject-matter jurisdiction before deciding Johnson’s default-judgment motion.
The order directly affects Scott Johnson and his counsel, who must submit separate sworn declarations within 21 days. It also concerns Kuma Kuma LLC because the court is considering whether the action, including the Unruh Act and ADA claims, may proceed in federal court.
What happened
In Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC, Scott Johnson asked for a default judgment against Kuma Kuma LLC. He requested $4,000 under the California Unruh Act, $4,767 in attorney fees and costs, and an order requiring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court said that a frequent California Unruh Act litigant’s state-law claim brought together with an Americans with Disabilities Act claim will typically be an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. The court also said it must independently determine whether Johnson has standing to bring the federal claim, including whether he intends to return to the defendant’s establishment.
Judge Charles R. Breyer ordered Johnson and his lawyer to respond within 21 days with separate sworn declarations addressing those jurisdictional issues. The court said it might hold an in-person hearing and warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The opinion did not decide the default-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC · No. 3:22-cv-01386
- Charles Breyer
- Oct. 20, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson moved for default judgment against Kuma Kuma LLC. He sought $4,000 in damages under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, $4,767 in attorney fees and costs, and an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Issues Identified by the Court
The court issued an order to show cause rather than ruling on the motion for default judgment. First, it questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a federal court may decline that jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. The court stated that when a high-frequency litigant asserts an Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, that combination will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance supporting dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.
Second, the court questioned whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists over the ADA claim. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear the claim. The court stated that federal courts must independently determine whether that authority exists, including whether the plaintiff has Article III standing. The court required evidence concerning Johnson’s intent to return to the defendant’s establishment.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury substantiating the jurisdictional allegations concerning his intent to return. It separately ordered Johnson’s counsel to submit a declaration describing in detail the investigation counsel conducted to confirm that Johnson visited the establishment and intends to return. The court stated that it might schedule an in-person evidentiary hearing to assess the truthfulness of the jurisdictional allegations.
Johnson and his counsel were required to respond within 21 days of the order. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The order did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion and did not finally resolve either claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.