Whitaker v. Nowrouzi
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-03039
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, Magistrate Judge Kim ordered Whitaker to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
Brian Whitaker was required to respond and provide declarations, and his counsel was required to submit declarations addressing Whitaker’s visits, possible deterrence, and intent to return. The case’s continued presence in federal court was placed in question because of standing.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Nowrouzi, the court questioned whether Brian Whitaker had the required legal standing to bring his Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit in federal court. The court noted allegations in another case about Whitaker’s counsel filing many similar lawsuits and noted that Whitaker had filed 553 cases in the district since January 1, 2021.
The court ordered Whitaker to explain in writing why the case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. It also required declarations from Whitaker and his counsel, made under penalty of perjury, supporting the allegations that Whitaker visited the defendants’ establishment and faced a real and immediate threat of being injured again.
The order required a response and the declarations by January 9, 2023; it did not itself dismiss the case. Magistrate Judge Allie Kim also required additional information if Whitaker claimed he was deterred from visiting, including where he lived, details about his visits and deterrence, and his intent to return.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Nowrouzi · No. 4:21-cv-03039
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The court stated that federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the authority to hear a case. The court ordered Plaintiff Brian Whitaker to show cause—in other words, to explain in writing—why the court should not prepare a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury and the requested relief.
The order discussed allegations from a separate California state-court case in which district attorneys alleged that Whitaker’s counsel filed thousands of boilerplate federal lawsuits asserting Americans with Disabilities Act standing. The federal court also noted that, since January 1, 2021, Whitaker had filed 553 cases in the Northern District of California alleging that he visited each establishment and intended to return to check compliance. The order described these matters as allegations and observations relevant to its jurisdictional inquiry.
Required submissions
The court ordered Whitaker’s counsel to submit declarations from both Whitaker and counsel, under penalty of perjury, substantiating in detail that Whitaker actually visited the defendants’ establishment as alleged in the complaint. The declarations also had to address whether Whitaker faced a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury” and his intent to return to the establishment.
If Whitaker relied instead on deterrence, the court required counsel’s declaration to state how many miles Whitaker lived from the establishment; how and when he visited it; how and when he was deterred from patronizing it; whether he intended to return to the geographic area; and whether he wanted to return to the facility if it became accessible.
Disposition
The court ordered Whitaker to respond to the order to show cause and provide the required declarations by January 9, 2023. The opinion is an order requiring an explanation and supporting evidence; it does not state that the case was dismissed. The order was signed by Allie Kim, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.