1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-07527-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 22 10 BOREL SQUARE LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 On June 17, 2022, the Clerk entered default against Defendant Borel Square LLC, 14 Plaintiff has filed suit seeking relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 15 California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”). Federal courts “have an independent 16 obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a 17 challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006). The only remedy 18 available for Plaintiff’s ADA claim is injunctive relief, but the Unruh Act provides for damages. 19 See, e.g., Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021). “[A] plaintiff must demonstrate 20 standing for each claim [they seek] to press and for each form of relief that is sought.” Town of 21 Chester, N.Y v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,

(2017) (quoting Davis v. Fed. Election 22 Comm’n,

(2008)). 23 Federal courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim “in 24 exceptional circumstances.”

(c)(4). In Arroyo, the Ninth Circuit noted that 25 although California has enacted stricter filing requirements for “high frequency litigants” to file 26 claims under the Unruh Act, litigants have “evaded those limits” by bringing claims in federal 27 courts alleging violations of the ADA and the Unruh Act.

. The court found ] Plaintiff has taken no further action against Borel Square LLC since the Clerk entered 2 || default. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why his claims against Borel 3 Square LLC should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff intends to maintain this 4 || action against Borel Square LLC, he and his counsel also are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE: 5 1. Why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of Article III standing. In 6 || response, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall submit separate declarations sworn under penalty 7 || of perjury that substantiate the jurisdictional allegations, including allegations regarding □□□□□□□□□□□ 8 initial visit to the establishment, Plaintiff's intent to return to the establishment, and counsel’s pre- 9 || filing investigation on the jurisdictional allegations. 10 2. Why the Court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the 11 Unruh Act claim. In response, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel shall submit declarations that 12 || provide the Court with the information necessary to determine if Plaintiff is a “high-frequency E 13 litigant,” as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure sections 425.55(b)(1) and 14 |} (2). 3 15 The response to this Order to Show Cause is due by January 9, 2023. If Plaintiff fails to 16 || file a timely response, the Court shall dismiss the case with prejudice. i 17 IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 18 || Dated: December 14, 2022 / | / ) Ato JEEFREY §./WHITE 20 United sypet Distrigg Judge 21 / 22 23 24 25 26 27 28