Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that JKLM Properties violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible parking at Main Street Professional Center in Milpitas, California. He also asserted a related claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that he visited the property three times in 2019, partly to determine whether it complied with disability-access laws, and that he intended to return after the barriers were addressed. He also alleged that the barriers currently deterred him from returning.

Standing analysis

JKLM moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Johnson lacked standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a remedy the court can provide. Because the ADA remedy sought by a private plaintiff is an injunction, the court explained that Johnson had to plausibly allege a real and immediate threat that he would be injured again.

The court rejected Johnson’s argument that being an ADA “tester”—someone who visits businesses to check compliance—automatically gave him standing. Tester status did not eliminate the requirement to show a genuine intent to return or sufficient deterrence from returning. The court found that Johnson’s allegations did not plausibly establish either. It noted that the property was approximately 120 miles from his home or business, that his general statement about returning did not identify concrete plans or specify what goods or services he sought there, and that his three visits did not clearly show patronage of a public accommodation. The court also found that Johnson had not alleged specific instances of deterrence, a preference for the property over other professional centers, or frequent travel near the property.

Judicial-notice rulings

The court granted JKLM’s requests for judicial notice of six documents, including records showing addresses, map directions, and docket reports listing ADA cases filed by Johnson. The court granted Johnson’s request to take judicial notice of 26 complaints filed in the Northern District of California, but denied the request to the extent it sought judicial notice of the disputed allegations contained in those complaints.

Disposition

The court found that Johnson had alleged an injury-in-fact but had not adequately alleged that he intended to return to the property or was sufficiently deterred from doing so. It therefore concluded that he could not satisfy the imminence requirement for standing and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his ADA claims.

Judge Edward J. Davila granted JKLM’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). Because the ADA claims did not support federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice. The court stated that amendment would not be futile, dismissed Johnson’s claims with leave to amend, and authorized him to file an amended complaint no later than October 5, 2020.