Whitaker v. Nowrouzi ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-03039-HSG (SK) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 ZAHRA NOWROUZI, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 13 jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 14 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Consistent with this independent obligation, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker is 15 HEREBY ORDERED to Show Cause (“OSC”) in writing why the undersigned should not prepare 16 a report and recommendation that this case should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. 17 In People v. Potter Handy LLP, Case No. CGC-22-599079, 2022 WL 1102496 (Cal. 18 Super. Ct. 2022), the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco and the District 19 Attorney for the County of Los Angeles allege that Plaintiff’s Counsel files “thousands of 20 boilerplate, cut-and-paste federal-court lawsuits that falsely assert its clients have standing under 21 the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)” and use “false standing allegations to get an 22 ADA injunctive-relief claim into federal court.” Moreover, the Court notes that since January 1, 23 2021, Plaintiff has filed 553 cases in this District alone alleging that he visited each of these 553 24 establishments and intended to return to them to ensure compliance. 25 In light of these allegations, the Court FURTHER ORDERS Plaintiff’s counsel to submit 26 declarations, both from Plaintiff and Counsel under penalty of perjury, substantiating, in detail, the 27 allegations that Plaintiff actually visited Defendants’ establishment as alleged in his Complaint in 1 years in this District. Additionally, the declaration must substantiate the jurisdictional allegations 2 || as to any “real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’] Med. Ctr. 3 Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). The declarations must adequately 4 || address Plaintiff's intent to return to the Defendants’ establishment. Alternatively, if Plaintiff 5 alleges deterrence, Counsel’s declaration must state how many miles away Plaintiff lives from 6 Defendants’ establishment and further describe how and when Plaintiff visited the establishment, 7 || how and when he was deterred from patronizing it, Plaintiff's intent to return to the geographic 8 area, and finally his desire to return to the facility were it made accessible. See D’Lil v. Best W. 9 Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008). 10 Plaintiff shall respond to this OSC and provide the required declarations by no later than 11 || January 9, 2023. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: December 12, 2022 . ; ALLIE KIM 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28