Gamba

Johnson v. Gamba

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 22, 20224:21-cv-06708California999 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-06708-JST

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

DIANE J. GAMBA, Defendant.

12 On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action against Defendant Diane J. Gamba, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) in relation to the Edward Jones branch in Belmont, California. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under the ADA and the Unruh Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at 8. Plaintiff contends that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state law claims. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Supplemental jurisdiction “is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right.” United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). District courts have discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if: “(1) the claim raises a novel or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.