Johnson v. Mantena LLC

Background

Scott Johnson, described in the opinion as a level C-5 quadriplegic, sued Mantena LLC and Alireza Parhizkari. He alleged that he visited their family dental practice four times in 2019 and encountered barriers involving accessible parking, door hardware, and paths of travel. He alleged that the barriers continued to exist and deterred him from returning. The complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that Parhizkari did not join Mantena’s motion.

Mantena’s jurisdictional arguments

Mantena moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a defendant to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Mantena made both a factual challenge, arguing that its alleged repairs made the ADA claims moot, and a facial challenge, arguing that the complaint did not adequately allege standing.

The court rejected Johnson’s argument that General Order 56 barred the motion. That order generally stays other discovery and proceedings, but the court stated that it and other courts in the district had routinely rejected that argument.

Mootness

The court denied Mantena’s motion to dismiss on mootness grounds. Mantena submitted a declaration stating that it had remedied all of the alleged ADA violations, but the declaration included no exhibits or other supporting evidence. Johnson’s complaint alleged that the violations still existed. The court concluded that it could not resolve the competing accounts or make the credibility determination Mantena sought through a jurisdictional motion. It also stated that the jurisdictional question and the ADA merits were intertwined because finding that repairs eliminated jurisdiction would effectively determine that the action was no longer meritorious.

Standing

The court granted Mantena’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1). Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury and a sufficient likelihood of future harm. Because a private ADA plaintiff may seek only an injunction, the court explained that Johnson had to show either an injury-in-fact combined with an intent to return or that he was deterred from returning while still having a plausible intent to return.

The court found that Johnson alleged an injury from encountering the barriers, but did not show that he would imminently encounter the same injury again. It considered the distance between his residence in Carmichael and the clinic in San Jose, his four prior visits, the lack of specific plans to return, and the absence of evidence that he frequently traveled near the clinic. The distance and lack of concrete plans favored Mantena; the prior visits weighed slightly in Johnson’s favor. Overall, the court concluded that Johnson had not shown an intent to return.

The court also rejected Johnson’s deterrence theory. It found that his general statement that he was deterred from visiting the clinic was insufficient because he did not explain why he preferred that clinic, allege that he intended to frequent the Bay Area, or provide a concrete future plan to visit. The court therefore concluded that he had not alleged an imminent future injury and lacked ADA standing.

Disposition and amendment

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims—over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim because it was based solely on the alleged ADA violation. That claim was dismissed without prejudice. The court stated that Johnson’s claims were dismissed with leave to amend, found that amendment would not be futile, and allowed him to file an amended complaint by May 28, 2020. It instructed him to complete a joint site inspection within that period and prohibited adding new claims or parties without court permission or the parties’ agreement.