Johnson v. Case Ventures, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Case Ventures, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that, during three visits to Case Ventures’ property, the property lacked accessible parking and accessible paths leading to and into the office building. He alleged that the barriers continued to exist and deterred him from returning.

The parties conducted a joint site inspection. Case Ventures later argued that it had corrected the access barriers and relied on a report and supplemental declaration from Bassam Altwal, a California Certified Access Specialist.

Motion and Legal Standard

Case Ventures moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the jurisdictional question was intertwined with the substance of the ADA claims, the court applied the summary-judgment standard when evaluating the motion. Under that standard, the court could consider evidence outside the complaint and could not resolve a genuine dispute over a material fact.

ADA Claims

The court explained that the ADA claims at issue sought injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. If the defendant remedies all of the alleged ADA violations, the claims can become moot, meaning there is no longer a live dispute for the court to decide, and the plaintiff loses standing to pursue them.

The court found the initial accessibility report too conclusory because it did not describe the examination or provide factual support. But the supplemental declaration described the examined barriers, measurements, methods, and applicable standards. It stated that the accessible parking space and path of travel complied with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the 2013 California Building Code. The declaration also explained that a handrail corrected the previously excessive slope and that wheel stops addressed the risk of vehicles encroaching on the accessible path.

Because Johnson did not rebut or object to the supplemental declaration, the court concluded that Case Ventures had remedied the alleged barriers and that no genuine dispute remained about the repairs. The court further concluded that the structural changes made it clear that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. It therefore held that Johnson’s ADA claims were moot, dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction, and granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claims.

Unruh Act Claim

The court determined that the Unruh Act claim remained live because a claim for damages under that statute concerns past harm. The court could keep the state-law claim only by exercising supplemental jurisdiction, which is a court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It explained that all claims over which it had original jurisdiction had been dismissed, that it had not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim, and that Johnson had not identified a significant inconvenience from refiling in state court.

Disposition

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court granted Case Ventures’ motion to dismiss Johnson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not expressly state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.