Johnson v. Borel Square LLC
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-07527
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Borel Square LLC, Judge White ordered Johnson to explain his standing, state-law claim, and lack of prosecution before possible dismissal.
Scott Johnson, his counsel, and Borel Square LLC. The order required Johnson and his counsel to provide declarations and warned that the case could be dismissed if Johnson did not respond; it did not yet enter a dismissal.
What happened
In Johnson v. Borel Square LLC, Scott Johnson sued Borel Square LLC and others under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The clerk entered default against Borel Square LLC on June 17, 2022, but Johnson took no further action against that defendant.
The court ordered Johnson to explain why his claims against Borel Square LLC should not be dismissed for failing to pursue them. It also required Johnson and his lawyer to explain whether Johnson had a sufficient personal stake to bring the claims in federal court and whether the court should hear his California claim. The court required sworn declarations about Johnson’s visits and intent to return to the establishment, the lawyer’s investigation before filing suit, and whether Johnson is a frequent Unruh Act litigant.
Judge White set January 9, 2023, as the response deadline. The order warned that if Johnson did not respond on time, the court would dismiss the case with prejudice; the order itself did not yet dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Borel Square LLC · No. 4:21-cv-07527
- Jeffrey White
- Dec. 14, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act against Borel Square LLC and other defendants. The clerk entered default against Borel Square LLC on June 17, 2022. The opinion states that Johnson took no further action against Borel Square LLC after default was entered.
The court noted that the ADA claim provides only injunctive relief, while the Unruh Act claim provides for damages. It also noted that a plaintiff must have Article III standing—meaning a sufficient personal stake in each claim and requested form of relief. The court further discussed the federal court’s authority to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim in exceptional circumstances. Citing Ninth Circuit authority, the court identified concerns about litigants avoiding California’s stricter filing requirements for “high frequency litigants” by bringing ADA and Unruh Act claims in federal court.
Order to Show Cause
The court ordered Johnson to show cause why his claims against Borel Square LLC should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. “Failure to prosecute” means failing to take required steps to move a case forward.
The court also ordered Johnson and his counsel to show cause on two jurisdictional issues:
1. Article III standing: They had to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Johnson and his counsel were required to submit separate declarations under penalty of perjury supporting the jurisdictional allegations, including allegations concerning Johnson’s initial visit to the establishment, his intent to return, and counsel’s pre-filing investigation of those allegations.
2. Supplemental jurisdiction: They had to explain why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Their declarations had to provide information needed to determine whether Johnson is a “high-frequency litigant” under the cited California statutes.
Disposition
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It ordered that any response to the order to show cause be filed by January 9, 2023. The order states that if Johnson failed to file a timely response, the court would dismiss the case with prejudice. The opinion does not state what happened after the response deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.