Johnson v. Canciamilla

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he has physical disabilities, uses a wheelchair, and has significant manual-dexterity impairments. He alleged that he visited Cigarette Express and El Buen Gusto Taqueria in January, March, and April 2019. The businesses were located at 1710 Berryessa Road in San Jose, California.

The complaint identified Anthony Canciamilla and Maria Canciamilla as owners of the real property, El Buen Gusto Corporation as the owner of El Buen Gusto Taqueria, and Mohamed Jallab as the owner of Cigarette Express. Johnson alleged that Jallab failed to provide wheelchair-accessible parking and accessible door hardware at Cigarette Express. He brought claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Motion to Dismiss

Jallab moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally valid claim. Jallab argued that Johnson had not alleged sufficient facts under either the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Unruh Act. The court construed Jallab’s filing liberally because he was representing himself.

The court held that Johnson’s allegations about inaccessible door hardware and parking stated plausible claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act. The court rejected Jallab’s argument that the alleged conditions were not architectural barriers and explained that simply denying the alleged facts did not show that the complaint failed to state a claim.

The court also declined to consider documents Jallab attached to his motion, including a bill of sale, photographs, and a lease agreement. The court found that Johnson had not relied on those documents in his complaint and that they did not fall within recognized exceptions allowing consideration of materials outside the complaint at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court therefore denied Jallab’s motion to dismiss. Jallab was ordered to answer the complaint by October 5, 2020, and, if appropriate, file a counterclaim against Anthony and Maria Canciamilla.

Publication of Summons

Johnson moved for permission to publish the summons for Anthony Canciamilla and Maria Canciamilla because, he said, they could not be found despite reasonable efforts. Under the applicable California service rule, publication may be authorized when a party cannot be served by another method despite reasonable diligence and the publication is likely to provide actual notice.

The court found that Johnson’s counsel had conducted database searches, identified multiple addresses, and attempted service in person, by mail, and by telephone. The court also considered evidence that employees and residents described Anthony and Maria Canciamilla as absentee landlords and that dozens of service attempts had been made at different times and addresses.

The court authorized publication of the summons in the San Jose Mercury News and granted Johnson’s motion. As part of the substitute service, Johnson was also required to serve the order, summons, complaint, and other required filings by certified mail through TMC Property Management and by first-class mail at all known addresses. The order terminated Docket Numbers 13 and 18.