Johnson v. V.O. Limited Partners

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-05855-VC

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

v. COURT SHOULD EXERCISE

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION

V.O. LIMITED PARTNERS, et al., AND WHY SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION EXISTS

Defendants.

1. Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in exceptional circumstances.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). When a “high-frequency” litigant asserts a California Unruh Act claim in federal court alongside an ADA claim, this will typically constitute an exceptional circumstance that justifies dismissal of the Unruh Act claim. See Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1211–14 (9th Cir. 2021); Garcia v. Maciel, 2022 WL 395316, at *2–5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022). The plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause why this Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. 2. With respect to the plaintiff’s ADA claim, federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,…