Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05873/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05873-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES I. ROSENFELD, in his individual and

representative capacity as trustee of the James

I. and Arlene Helen Rosenfeld Trust; ARLENE

H. ROSENFELD, in her individual and

representative capacity as trustee of the James

I. and Arlene Helen Rosenfeld Trust; ELZA

HINOSTROZA; and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-05873 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO DISMISS AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

In this action asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claim. 

For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Scott Johnson, who had quadriplegia, used a wheelchair for mobility. On

several occasions in 2017 and 2018, plaintiff visited the Big Basin Café in Saratoga, California. 

During these visits, plaintiff encountered various accessibility barriers in connection with the

restaurant’s restrooms, dining tables, and transaction counters. Plaintiff initiated this action in

September 2018, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s

Case 3:18-cv-05873-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Unruh Civil Rights Act. Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff’s state-law claim, arguing

that supplemental jurisdiction over the claim should be declined (Dkt. Nos. 1, 15). 

This order follows full briefing. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this order finds the motion

suitable for submission without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for

December 20. 

ANALYSIS

With certain exceptions, “in any civil action of which the district courts have original

jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are

so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the

same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. §

1367(a). The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if,

among other things, “the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which

the district court has original jurisdiction” or “in exceptional circumstances, there are other

compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” Id. at § 1367(c)(2), (4). In exercising this

discretion, district courts should be informed by “values of economy, convenience, fairness, and

comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) 

In addition to a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the complaint asserts a

claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Act provides for statutory

damages and expressly renders an ADA violation a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code

§§ 51(f), 52. Supplemental jurisdiction should therefore be exercised over plaintiff’s state-law

claim because it indisputably arises from a common nucleus of operative facts. Even if one of

Section 1367(c)’s exceptions applies, there is no reason to decline supplemental jurisdiction

where, as here, plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is predicated on his ADA claim. Although filing an

Unruh Act claim in this action may relieve plaintiff of certain procedural requirements that

would apply in state court — such as alleging the date of each particular occasion plaintiff

encountered the specific barriers and stating the number of disability-access lawsuits he has

filed in the past twelve months — proceeding on identical cases in two courts would be unduly

inconvenient and would undercut judicial economy by causing wasteful duplication in parallel

Case 3:18-cv-05873-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

proceedings. Exercising supplemental jurisdiction remains in the interest of “economy,

convenience, fairness and comity.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim is

DENIED. The hearing set for December 20 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2018. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-05873-WHA Document 23 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 3