1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-04702-JCS

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DECLINING TO EXERCISE 9 v. SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION AND GRANTING REQUEST TO 10 JIA HE CORPORATION, DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. Nos. 31, 33

12 13 The Court ordered Plaintiff Scott Johnson to show cause why the Court should not decline 14 to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his claim under California’s Unruh Act for the reasons 15 stated in Garcia v. Maciel, No. 21-cv-03743-JCS,

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2022), 16 which in turn relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 17 2021). See Order to Show Cause (“OSC,” dkt. 31) (text-only docket entry). Johnson concedes 18 that there is nothing novel about this case that would alter the Court’s previous reasoning in 19 Garcia. Pl.’s OSC Response (dkt. 33). The Court therefore declines to exercise supplemental 20 jurisdiction and DISMISSES Johnson’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state 21 Court. 22 Johnson also asks that the Court dismiss his federal claim under the Americans with 23 Disabilities Act without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Defendant Jia He Corporation asks 24 the Court to construe Johnson’s request as a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal 25 Rules of Civil Procedure, and to either deny that motion and conduct jurisdictional discovery to 26 resolve whether Johnson has standing to sue in this Court, or dismiss with prejudice and require 27 Johnson to reimburse Jia He’s attorneys’ fees. Def.’s OSC Response (dkt. 34). ] supplemental jurisdiction with its decision in Arroyo. Jia He has made no showing that Johnson 2 || lacks standing or that the case was otherwise frivolous when filed. In the period of more than a 3 || year that this case has been pending, Jia He has made no previous effort to challenge Johnson’s 4 || standing. Instead, Jia He answered the complaint without moving to dismiss. Conducting 5 || jurisdictional discovery now, to determine whether Johnson has standing to pursue his claim in a 6 || forum where he no longer wishes to do so, would be a waste of resources. Accordingly, 7 || construing Johnson’s request for dismissal of his ADA claim without prejudice as a motion under 8 || Rule 41(a)(2), that motion is GRANTED, and the ADA claim is DISMISSED without prejudice to 9 || refiling in state court. Jia He’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED. This order is without 10 || prejudice to any defense or argument Jia He might raise in state court. 11 The Clerk is instructed to close the case.! 3 12 IT ISSO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2022

CZ J PH C. SPERO 15 ief Magistrate Judge

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Oe pores consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes under 28 U.S.C. C).