Johnson v. Holden

Background

Scott Johnson, a level C-5 quadriplegic, sued Donald B. Holden, Elizabeth Holden, and Terra Bella Group, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants operate a Shell gas station. Johnson alleged that he visited the station six times and that employees parked vehicles in the van-accessible parking space. He also alleged that the station had too few accessible parking spaces.

After being served with the lawsuit, defendants’ authorized representative, Tom Gidlundt, instructed employees not to block the accessible space, placed cones around it, posted a tow-away sign, and adopted policies and checklists requiring managers to monitor the space. Defendants also retained certified access specialists to inspect the property and arranged inspections twice a year for at least three years.

Claims and analysis

Johnson asserted two ADA claims. First, he alleged that the accessible parking space was routinely obstructed. Second, he alleged that the station was required to have two accessible spaces because it supposedly had about 33 parking spaces.

The court concluded that the second claim was no longer in issue because the parties’ later investigation showed that the station had only 12 parking spaces. The court stated that only one accessible space was required and that defendants had one.

The court treated the first claim as moot. Mootness means that later events leave no live dispute for a court to decide. The court found that defendants had remedied the alleged obstruction and had taken substantial steps to prevent it from recurring, including monitoring procedures, a tow-away warning, and recurring accessibility inspections. The court held that defendants met their burden of showing that the alleged conduct was not reasonably likely to happen again. It therefore rejected Johnson’s argument that the voluntary-cessation exception kept the claim alive.

The court also noted that Johnson raised additional alleged problems involving a slope, travel path, parking-space striping, and an access aisle in his opposition papers, but those barriers were not alleged in the complaint. The court found that Johnson provided no evidence supporting those additional allegations beyond summary statements.

Sanctions and disposition

Defendants asked the court to sanction Johnson for the costs of bringing the summary-judgment motion. The court denied that request. It explained that mootness involved a complicated, fact-specific inquiry and that the court could have reached a different conclusion about whether the ADA claim was moot. The court also noted that defendants provided no evidence showing the amount of money or expenses incurred in defending the parking-space-number claim.

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, denied defendants’ request for sanctions, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim, and dismissed that state-law claim without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the file.