1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

SCOTT JOHNSON,

10 Case No. 21-cv-04132-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER DENYING STAY AND 12 REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

LPLW, LLC, CAUSE

13 Defendant. 14

15 16 Plaintiff Scott Johnson brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 17 alleging that he encountered unlawful barriers at places of business operated by defendant. 18 Johnson is represented by The Center for Disability Access, which bills itself as a “division” of 19 Potter Handy, LLP. Defendant moves for a stay of initial disclosure and other discovery-related 20 requirements of General Order 56 pending resolution of People of the State of California 21 v. Potter Handy LLP, No. CGC-22-599079 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2022). In the alternative, defendant 22 seeks an order (1) directing Johnson and his counsel each to submit sworn declarations 23 substantiating the jurisdictional allegations as to Johnson’s intent to return to defendant’s places of 24 business, (2) directing Johnson to provide details supporting his allegations that he visited the 25 places of business, and (3) staying all other activity in this case pending the court’s receipt and 26 review of such declarations. 27 Johnson filed a tardy opposition to the motion, contending a stay pending the outcome of 1 defendants. While a stay based on the state court action against Potter Handy would not have been 2 warranted in any event, that case has now been dismissed. 3 Although an extended or indefinite stay is not appropriate, Johnson is ordered to file papers 4 || by October 1, 2022, showing cause why the court should not decline to exercise jurisdiction over 5 his Unruh Act claim, under the principles discussed in Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 6 2021). See also Johnson v. Constantia Capital Limited, et al., 22-cv-01456-RS (N.D. Cal. August 7 || 30, 2022). 8 Additionally, with respect to defendant’s request that Johnson and his counsel be required 9 to provide declarations to support the allegations of the complaint, the ordinary presumption is 10 || that counsel has complied with their obligations under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 11 Procedure, and that a defendant who wants to test the allegations of the complaint and/or gather 12 additional information must do so in the discovery process. Under all the circumstances here, 5 13 however, Johnson’s October 1, 2022, response should either include such declarations or show 14 || cause why they should not be required or cannot be provided.

a 16 || ITISSO ORDERED.

|| Datea: September 12, 2022 19

ICHARD SEEBORG

20 Chief United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . CASE No. 21-cv-04132-RS