Johnson v. Montpelier One LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Montpelier One LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that, during two visits to a chiropractor’s office at property owned by Montpelier One LLC, he encountered three accessibility barriers: inaccessible parking, inaccessible door hardware, and inaccessible paths of travel into the office. The complaint sought relief under the ADA and state law.

Montpelier moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that its voluntary removal of the barriers made Johnson’s ADA claim moot, that Johnson had not adequately pleaded standing to seek an injunction, and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim if the ADA claim were dismissed.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that, if Montpelier established that the three structural barriers had been remedied, Johnson’s ADA claim could be moot because private ADA plaintiffs may seek only injunctive relief and must show a real and immediate threat of future injury. But Montpelier relied on evidence outside the complaint to establish that the barriers no longer existed.

The court explained that when a jurisdictional question and the merits of a claim are intertwined, the court must apply the summary judgment standard rather than resolve the issue solely as a motion to dismiss. Here, whether the property still violated the ADA affected both subject-matter jurisdiction and the substance of Johnson’s ADA claim. The court therefore converted the motion to dismiss for mootness into a motion for summary judgment.

Under that standard, Montpelier had to show that no genuine dispute of material fact existed about whether the barriers remained. The court found that the initial declaration from Montpelier’s Certified Access Specialist, Steve Moncur, was too conclusory because it lacked sufficient factual support. Montpelier later submitted a supplemental declaration with its reply. That declaration described the features examined, measurements taken, applicable ADA and California standards, and photographs of the relevant areas. The court stated that this additional material would be sufficient to meet Montpelier’s summary judgment burden, but it did not consider the new evidence without giving Johnson an opportunity to respond.

Order

The court allowed Johnson to file a sur-reply addressing the evidence submitted with Montpelier’s reply. The sur-reply was due June 24, 2020, and could not exceed 15 pages. Johnson could also request additional time under Rule 56(d) to obtain an expert-led site inspection, but the court directed him to explain why that was needed in light of Montpelier’s assertion that the parties had already conducted a joint inspection. The court continued the motion hearing from June 25 to July 2, 2020.

The order converted the mootness motion into a motion for summary judgment and allowed a sur-reply. It did not grant or deny summary judgment, decide whether the ADA claim was moot, decide Johnson’s standing, or resolve the state-law claim.