1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 22-cv-01137-JSW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND 10 MARY LOUISE ORR, et al., SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION Defendants. 11 12 13 On August 8, 2022, Defendants filed an administrative motion to lift the stay on discovery 14 imposed by General Order 56 to permit Defendants to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s standing to 15 sue. Under Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on August 12, 16 2022. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 17 Plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 18 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Federal courts “have an independent 19 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a 20 challenge from any party. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006). The only remedy 21 available for Plaintiff’s ADA claim is injunctive relief, but the Unruh Act provides for damages. 22 See, e.g., Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate 23 standing for each claim [they seek] to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Town of 24 Chester, N.Y v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,

(2017) (quoting Davis v. Fed. Election 25 Comm’n,

(2008)). 26 Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in 27 exceptional circumstances.”

(c)(4). In Arroyo, the Ninth Circuit noted that ] claims under the Unruh Act, litigants have “evaded those limits” by bringing claims in federal 2 || courts alleging violations of the ADA and the Unruh Act.

. The court found 3 “[t]hese circumstances are ‘exceptional’ in any meaningful sense of the term.” Jd. 4 In light of the issues raised in Defendants’ administrative motion and having reviewed 5 || Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel are HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW 6 || CAUSE: 7 1. Why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of Article III standing. In 8 || response, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall submit separate declarations sworn under penalty 9 || of perjury that substantiate the jurisdictional allegations, including allegations regarding □□□□□□□□□□□ 10 initial visit to the establishment, Plaintiff's intent to return to the establishment, and counsel’s pre- 11 filing investigation on the jurisdictional allegations. 12 If the Court concludes the jurisdictional allegations in the declarations are facially E 13 adequate, Defendant(s) shall have the option to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery on 14 || whether Plaintiff visited the establishment and on Plaintiffs intent to return. The Court reserves 3 15 || the right to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the standing issue. 16 2. Why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the i 17 || Unruh Act claim. In response, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall submit declarations that Z 18 || provide the Court with the information necessary to determine if Plaintiff is a “high-frequency 19 || litigant,” as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and 20 |} (2). 21 The response to this Order to Show Cause is due within 21 days. If Plaintiff and □□□□□□□□□□□ 22 || counsel fail to file a timely response, the Court shall dismiss the case without prejudice. Pending a 23 || response to the Order to Show Cause all deadlines set forth in General Order 56 shall be tolled. 24 IT ISSO ORDERED. _~ 25 || Dated: August 15, 2022 / “ | / ) At JEFPREY $. WHITE; 27 United St fed Distrig/ Judge 28