Johnson v. Rotisabjiinc

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND WHY SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION EXISTS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on July 29, 2022. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2022)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 5:22-cv-01167-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
COURT SHOULD EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
AND WHY SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION EXISTS

v.
ROTISABJIINC,
Defendant.

1. Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim

12

“in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts

13

a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically

14

constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo

15

v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, 2022 WL 395316, at *2–5

16

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022); Johnson v. Right Crons Inc., 2021 WL 3565441 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11,

17

2021). Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise

18

supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

19

In the interests of efficiency, assuming the Court declines to exercise supplemental

20

jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, it is not obvious whether Plaintiff would want to continue

21

pursuing his ADA claim in this Court, rather than proceeding on his Unruh Act claim and ADA

22

claim in state court. Plaintiff is therefore ordered to inform the Court whether he would prefer to

23

dismiss his ADA claim to proceed on that claim in state court with his Unruh Act claim.

24

2. With respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claim, federal courts “have an independent obligation to

25

determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any

26

party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Consistent with that independent

27

obligation, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

28

Case No.: 5:22-cv-01167-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1

1

Article III standing. In response, both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel must submit separate

2

declarations sworn under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff’s declaration must substantiate the

3

jurisdictional allegations as to Plaintiff’s intent to return to Defendant’s establishment.

4

Furthermore, considering the well-pled allegations by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District

5

Attorneys regarding the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, these declarations must

6

substantiate, in detail, the allegations that Plaintiff visited the establishment in the first place. See

7

Complaint, People of the State of California v. Potter Handy LLP, No. CGC-22-599079 (Cal.

8

Super. Ct. 2022), 2022 WL 1102496. Counsel’s declaration must describe, in detail, the

9

investigation counsel conducted to ensure that their client visited the establishment and intends to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

return there.
3. Assuming the Court finds the jurisdictional allegations contained in the declarations to

12

be facially adequate, Defendant shall have the option to conduct jurisdictional discovery. If

13

Defendant opts for jurisdictional discovery, they will be permitted to take discovery on Plaintiff’s

14

intent to return and whether Plaintiff did, in fact, personally visit Defendant’s establishment.

15

Regardless of whether jurisdictional discovery takes place, the Court will likely schedule an in-

16

person evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of the jurisdictional allegations submitted in

17

response to this order to show cause.

18

Plaintiff and counsel must respond within 21 days of this order. Failure to respond and

19

failure to appear in-person will result in a dismissal of this action with prejudice. In the

20

meantime, all other deadlines are vacated in this case and the parties are temporarily relieved from

21

the requirements of General Order 56.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: July 29, 2022

24
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:22-cv-01167-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
2