Johnson v. Tom

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic, uses a wheelchair, and has significant manual dexterity impairments. He visited the Forever Young Salon seven times between April 2017 and January 2018. He alleged that the salon did not have accessible parking spaces that complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants, Leonard Tom and Pearl Lai Tom, moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear a dispute.

Court’s analysis

The defendants argued that Johnson’s ADA claim was moot. A claim is moot when later events mean that the court can no longer provide effective relief or there is no reasonable expectation that the challenged conduct will happen again.

The court considered a declaration stating that the salon was no longer operating and that the property would not be rented to the salon again. The defendants were instead seeking permits and approval to convert the property into a 44-unit residential property. The court concluded that the salon’s permanent closure and the planned replacement building meant there was no longer a reasonable expectation that the alleged ADA violations would recur.

The court rejected Johnson’s argument that it could not consider the defendants’ declaration. In a factual challenge to jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), the court may consider evidence outside the complaint. The court also found that Johnson provided no basis to disregard the declaration and did not contest that the defendants were actively seeking to develop the property.

The court also rejected Johnson’s argument that General Order 56 barred the motion. Relying on its earlier ruling in a related matter, the court concluded that General Order 56 did not prevent the defendants from filing a responsive pleading.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Johnson’s ADA claim as moot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim and dismissed that state-law claim without prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the file.

Terminology note

The opinion refers in one passage to a declaration by “Pearl Lai Tran,” while elsewhere it identifies the defendant and the declaration as “Pearl Lai Tom” or the “Lai Declaration.”