Johnson v. Akkaya
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-04198
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Akkaya, Judge Tigar ordered Scott Johnson to explain why the court should hear his California disability claim.
Scott Johnson and his counsel must respond to the order regarding the Unruh Act claim, damages, and high-frequency-litigant status. The defendants are affected because the court may dismiss the complaint if Johnson does not file the required response.
What happened
Johnson v. Akkaya concerns Scott Johnson’s claims that Cihan and Serife Akkaya violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act in connection with John’s Creation, a business in San Carlos, California.
Johnson seeks an order requiring compliance with the disability-access law, money damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. He contends that the federal court can hear the Unruh Act claim along with his federal claim.
The court did not yet decide whether it would hear the Unruh Act claim. Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered Johnson to respond within 14 days, identify the damages sought, and provide information about whether he and his lawyer meet California’s definition of a high-frequency litigant; failing to respond will result in dismissal of the complaint.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Akkaya · No. 4:21-cv-04198
- Jon Tigar
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Scott Johnson sued Cihan and Serife Akkaya, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act relating to John’s Creation in San Carlos, California. The court had granted Johnson leave to file an amended complaint. He seeks injunctive relief under both statutes, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Johnson asserted that the court had federal-question jurisdiction over the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims—is discretionary. Federal law allows a court to decline that jurisdiction when, among other circumstances, the state-law issues substantially predominate or exceptional circumstances provide compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction.
The court cited numerous California federal decisions declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims brought with Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It also relied on its earlier decision in a similar case, which described a recent influx of these combined federal and state claims and concerns that filing them in federal court could bypass California’s requirements and undermine California courts’ role in enforcing the state’s policies. The court stated that this case presented the same considerations.
Order
The court ordered Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain—why it should not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Johnson must file a response within 14 days of the order. The response must identify the amount of statutory damages sought. Johnson and his counsel must also submit declarations providing the facts needed to determine whether they satisfy California’s definition of a “high-frequency litigant” under California Civil Procedure Code sections 425.55(b)(1) and (2).
The order did not decide whether the court would retain the Unruh Act claim. It states that failure to file a written response will result in dismissal of the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.