Johnson v. Fischer

Background

Scott Johnson sued Robert S. Fischer over alleged wheelchair-accessibility barriers involving outdoor dining surfaces at Palo Alto Creamery. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act). The court previously ordered Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing and why the court should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim.

Unruh Act claim

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances. The court determined that this case presented such circumstances because Johnson was a high-frequency litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim together with an ADA claim. The court rejected Johnson’s argument that the district’s procedural rules for ADA cases addressed the concerns underlying California’s heightened requirements for high-frequency litigants.

The court also concluded that the relevant considerations—including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts—favored declining supplemental jurisdiction. Because the court had not ruled on the merits of Johnson’s ADA claim, it found that declining the state-law claim would not be unfair and that Johnson could pursue the same remedies in state court. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Article III standing

Article III standing requires a plaintiff to show an injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. For a plaintiff seeking an order requiring future accessibility, the plaintiff must also show that the plaintiff was deterred from returning or genuinely intends to return and is likely to encounter the alleged barrier again.

Johnson and his lawyer submitted declarations in response to the court’s order. The court found Johnson’s declaration largely repeated the complaint’s limited allegations and offered vague, conclusory statements about his intent to return. It found counsel’s declaration to be boilerplate and lacking meaningful facts about the pre-filing investigation of this matter.

Disposition

The court concluded that an evidentiary hearing on subject-matter jurisdiction was appropriate. It ordered limited jurisdictional discovery consisting of depositions of Johnson and Fischer, with each deposition limited to four hours and permitted to occur remotely. Judge Jeffrey S. White set the evidentiary hearing for January 20, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., to resolve whether Johnson had Article III standing to pursue his ADA claim. The order did not decide the merits of that ADA claim or finally decide the standing issue.