Johnson v. San Carlos Inn
- Sallie Kim
- 3:19-cv-00061
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. San Carlos Inn, Judge Kim required more briefing and continued the hearing on the inn’s challenge to standing and mootness.
Scott Johnson and San Carlos Inn, L.P.; the order required additional briefing and continued the hearing without deciding the defendant’s motion.
What happened
In Johnson v. San Carlos Inn, San Carlos Inn asked the court to rule in its favor based on the pleadings, arguing that the barriers had been fixed or did not exist and that Johnson lacked standing. Johnson responded with procedural objections but did not address those factual arguments.
The court rejected Johnson’s arguments that a case-management stay barred the motion, that outside evidence could not be considered, and that the standing issue should be treated as a claim-failure issue. The court gave Johnson an opportunity to inspect the parking lot, submit a supplemental response, and, if needed, provide a declaration about standing.
Judge Sallie Kim did not decide the motion. She required additional briefing and continued the hearing to January 27, 2020, while setting deadlines for Johnson’s supplemental opposition and the defendant’s reply.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. San Carlos Inn · No. 3:19-cv-00061
- Sallie Kim
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
San Carlos Inn, L.P. moved for judgment on the pleadings. It argued that Johnson’s request for an injunction was moot because the alleged access barriers had been remedied or did not exist, and that Johnson lacked standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury and a sufficient likelihood of future harm. The opinion states that injunctive relief was the only available remedy under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act in this case.
Johnson raised procedural objections but did not address the factual questions about whether barriers remained or whether he was likely to encounter them again. The court discussed factors relevant to future-injury standing, including the plaintiff’s intent to return, whether barriers deterred a visit, the business’s proximity, past patronage, plans to return, and travel near the business.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that General Order 56 did not prevent the defendant from challenging standing or subject-matter jurisdiction. The order generally stays discovery and similar proceedings in Americans with Disabilities Act access cases, but the court concluded that it did not bar the filing of this motion. Alternatively, the court granted relief from the stay to consider the motion.
The court also rejected Johnson’s argument that considering evidence outside the pleadings would require converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment. It explained that courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings when evaluating a subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge, including a challenge based on Article III standing. The court further stated that lack of Article III standing is treated as a subject-matter-jurisdiction issue, rather than as failure to state a claim.
Order and Effect
The court did not grant or deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, it gave Johnson an opportunity to address the motion’s factual arguments. Johnson could inspect the parking lot again if he claimed it was not compliant on July 10, 2019, the date of the joint inspection. If Johnson submitted a declaration to show standing, the defendant could depose him for up to two hours about that declaration.
Johnson’s supplemental opposition was due December 12,
- If he filed a declaration, he was required to be available for a deposition by January 6,
- The defendant’s supplemental reply was due January 13,
- Judge Sallie Kim continued the hearing on the motion to January 27, 2020.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.