Johnson v. Montpelier One LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Montpelier One LLC over accessibility barriers at property located at 2380 Montpelier Drive in San Jose, California. The property housed a chiropractor’s office that Johnson visited in January and April 2019. Johnson alleged that the property lacked accessible parking, accessible door hardware, and accessible paths of travel leading into the office.

Johnson alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. For the ADA claim, he requested injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring changes. He sought an unspecified amount of statutory damages under the Unruh Act.

Motion and Evidence

Montpelier One moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that its voluntary remediation of the barriers made the ADA claim moot and that Johnson had not adequately pleaded standing to seek an injunction. It also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, meaning it asked the federal court not to continue hearing the related state-law claim.

The court had previously converted the mootness portion of the motion into a motion for summary judgment because Montpelier One relied on evidence outside the pleadings. The court gave Johnson an opportunity to request more time and to respond to additional evidence filed with the reply brief. Johnson did not do so.

Montpelier One submitted a supplemental declaration from Steve Moncur describing his inspection, measurements, the standards he applied, and photographs of the parking space, pathway, and door. The court found that this evidence was sufficiently detailed to show that the alleged barriers had been remedied. Because Johnson did not rebut or object to that evidence, the court found no genuine dispute about the remediation.

Rulings

The court held that Johnson’s ADA claim for injunctive relief was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed and there was no effective relief left for the court to order. The court dismissed the ADA claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the Unruh Act claim remained live because it sought damages for past harm. However, after dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. It dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Disposition

The court dismissed the ADA claim as moot and dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on June 28, 2020.