Johnson v. Baird Lands, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson sued Baird Lands, Inc. and Jason’s Café, Inc. over alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that architectural barriers at Jason’s Café in Menlo Park denied him full and equal access during visits on March 21, March 27, June 1, and June 26, 2018.

The alleged barriers included inaccessible parking and entrance-door hardware that required tight grasping. Johnson stated that a parking space marked with a faded accessibility symbol was blocked by items, that no van-accessible space was available, and that he left without entering the restaurant. The restaurant later closed permanently. Baird Lands sold the property, and Jason’s Café dissolved.

ADA claim

The defendants argued that the ADA claim was moot because the restaurant had permanently ceased operations and Baird Lands no longer owned the property. A claim is moot when later events eliminate any live dispute or requested relief. The court held that the closure and sale left nothing to enjoin because Title III provides injunctive relief—not damages—for the alleged violations. The court therefore denied Johnson’s motion as moot as to the ADA claim and concluded that the ADA claim was moot.

Unruh Act claim

The court retained supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide the related state-law claim, because the case was at an advanced stage and doing so served judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

The defendants did not dispute that Johnson was disabled, that the restaurant was a public accommodation, that they owned or operated it during his visits, or that the parking lot lacked an accessible parking space whose removal was readily achievable. The court concluded that the inaccessible parking violated the ADA and therefore also violated the Unruh Act. It granted Johnson’s motion for summary judgment as to the inaccessible parking.

Johnson also sought summary judgment based on the entrance-door hardware. Because his declaration said he left after being unable to park and did not state that he personally encountered the door hardware, the court found a genuine issue of material fact and denied the motion as to that barrier.

Damages and disposition

The Unruh Act provides $4,000 in statutory damages for each occasion on which a person is denied equal access. The court rejected Johnson’s request for $4,000 per defendant because both defendants were jointly responsible for the same personally encountered parking barrier. The court awarded $4,000 total, for which the defendants were jointly and severally liable, meaning either defendant could be responsible for the entire amount.

The order states that Johnson’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part: denied as moot as to the ADA claim; granted as to the Unruh Act claim concerning inaccessible parking; and denied as to the Unruh Act claim concerning the door hardware.