Whitaker v. The Lonely Planet LLC

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 BRIAN WHITAKER, 15 Plaintiff, No. C 21-03365 WHA 16 v.

17 THE LONELY PLANET LLC, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 18 Defendant.

20 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 21 jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 22 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Consistent with that independent obligation, plaintiff is ORDERED 23 TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

24 In light of the well-pleaded allegations by the San Francisco and Los Angeles District 25 Attorneys regarding the conduct of the Potter Handy firm and its clients, plaintiff’s counsel 26 must also submit one or more declaration(s) substantiating, in detail, the allegations that the 27 plaintiff visited the establishment in the first place. See Complaint, People of the State of 1 1102496. The declaration must substantiate the jurisdictional allegations as to any “real and 2 immediate threat of repeated injury.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’] Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 3 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). This must adequately address plaintiffs intent 4 to return to the defendant’s establishment. Alternatively, if plaintiff alleges deterrence, 5 counsel’s declaration must state how many miles away plaintiff lives from the establishment 6 and further describe how and when plaintiff visited the establishment, how and when he was 7 deterred from patronizing it, plaintiffs intent to return to the geographic area, and finally his 8 desire to return to the facility were it made accessible. See D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & 9 Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008).

10 Plaintiff must submit a declaration separate from that of counsel. Plaintiff must swear to 11 this declaration under penalty of perjury. Just like the declaration of counsel, plaintiff's 12 declaration must swear to the facts supporting all jurisdictional requirements detailed above 13 that are necessary to support a “real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Ervine, 753 || P3dat 867-68.

3 15 Plaintiff and counsel must respond by JUNE 24, 2022. Failure to respond will result in a a 16 dismissal of this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: June 15, 2022.

LAC Pee 21 - WILLIAM ALSUP 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE