Johnson v. ARS Hospitality LLC

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims against ARS Hospitality LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case had a pending motion for default judgment and was reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Standing concern

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning Johnson was required to explain why the court should not take a specified action. The court questioned whether he adequately alleged Article III standing, the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and personal injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

For ADA injunctive relief, the court explained that Johnson also had to show a sufficient likelihood that he would be harmed again in a similar way. Under Ninth Circuit law, this generally requires facts showing either that he intended to return to the noncompliant public accommodation or that he was deterred from returning because of disability-related barriers. The court found that the complaint contained conclusory statements but no factual support for an intent to return under either theory. It stated that any default judgment would be void if the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Unruh Act jurisdiction

The court separately ordered Johnson to show cause why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in a case involving a federal claim. The court stated that exceptional circumstances appeared to support declining jurisdiction, considering federal-state comity, convenience, fairness, and judicial economy. It also referred to its prior orders involving Johnson and stated that it believed he viewed the lawsuits as a mission-based business seeking to avoid California’s heightened pleading standards and obtain cash settlements.

Order

The court ordered Johnson to explain in writing by November 10, 2022, why he had standing and why the court should continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It stated that failure to respond would be treated as a concession that Johnson lacked standing to seek injunctive relief and that dismissal of the entire action was appropriate. The court also stated that failure to respond to the jurisdiction issue would be treated as a concession that exceptional circumstances supported declining supplemental jurisdiction.

The order did not itself dismiss the case, decline supplemental jurisdiction, or rule on the motion for default judgment. It stated that the court was considering dismissal with leave to amend and denial of the default-judgment motion as moot.