1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-07009-SI

9 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 10 v. COURT SHOULD NOT DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL 11 FOGLI FAMILY ENTERPRISES, LLC, et JURISDICTION al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 On January 26, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter 15 jurisdiction. That motion primarily addresses standing and does not address supplemental 16 jurisdiction. 17 In addition to addressing the arguments defendants have raised, plaintiff Scott Johnson is 18 ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why, if the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction 19 over Johnson’s federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Court should 20 not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law Unruh Act claim for the 21 reasons stated in Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). Although that decision held that 22 a district court erred in declining to exercise jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim when the court 23 had already determined the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on a parallel ADA claim, the Ninth 24 Circuit had “little difficulty concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 25 concluding that the situation presented . . . involves ‘exceptional circumstances’” sufficient to 26 decline supplemental jurisdiction if the issue had been raised at an earlier stage of the case.

at 27 1214. Accordingly, Johnson’s opposition brief, which is due February 9, 2022, must address why 1 case survives defendants’ motion. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Sua Lae 5 Dated: January 27, 2022 SUSAN ILLSTON 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28