Johnson v. Jun

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He seeks an order requiring access, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Johnson alleges that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and has significant difficulty using his hands.

Johnson alleges that he visited Eastridge Liquors several times, including twice in April 2019 and once in May 2019. He claims that the store did not provide accessible parking, which caused him difficulty and discomfort and prevented him from having full and equal access to the facility. He also alleges that he will return when the store and its facilities are represented to him as accessible.

Motion and Arguments

Youn Lee and Jeong Ae Lee, referred to collectively as the Lee Defendants, moved to dismiss. They argued that their landlord had built a new parking lot in October 2018 that complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1992 ADA Accessibility Guidelines, and the applicable California Building Code. They cited an approved City of San Jose plan and an inspection card, asserted that the lot had not been altered after construction, and submitted photographs.

Johnson argued that the motion depended on evidence outside the complaint and improperly treated facts related to the court’s authority and the merits of his claims as undisputed. He also argued that the Lee Defendants had not provided enough evidence about the parking space’s slope and cross-slope to establish compliance.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that the motion was effectively a premature motion for summary judgment. It concluded that the Lee Defendants were challenging the factual allegations in the complaint, which was improper at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court also noted Johnson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the parking lot.

The court stated that, when reviewing a motion to dismiss, it views the allegations in favor of the nonmoving party. It further noted that doubts about the parking lot’s compliance could be addressed through the joint site inspection required by General Order 56, which had not yet occurred.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss at ECF 16. The opinion also states that default had been entered against the two other defendants, In Suk Jun and Kyu Jin Jun; that default was not the motion decided in this order.