Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza

Background

Scott Johnson sued Monterey & Rancho Plaza and Tony Dimaggio’s Stromboli & Pizza, Inc. over alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Johnson alleged that he is a C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and has significant manual-dexterity impairments. He said he visited the restaurant four times in May, June, and July 2018 and personally encountered barriers involving accessible parking, the transaction counter, door hardware, and the restroom sink.

The defendants initially answered. They later abandoned the case, ignored five court orders requiring them to respond or appear, and did not oppose the motion for default judgment. At Johnson’s request, the court struck the defendants’ answer and entered default on July 30, 2020. The court also vacated the hearing on the motion and decided it on the written submissions.

Jurisdiction and service

The court found federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Act claim. It also found personal jurisdiction over the defendants and concluded that Johnson properly served them under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and California law.

Default judgment and liability

A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to defend. The court applied the factors used to decide whether default judgment is appropriate, including prejudice, the strength of the claims, the amount at stake, the possibility of factual disputes, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits. The court concluded that the factors favored default judgment because the defendants had abandoned the case and default judgment was Johnson’s only means of obtaining relief.

The court accepted the complaint’s liability allegations as true, but it separately evaluated damages. It found that Johnson had standing to seek ADA injunctive relief because he alleged that he personally encountered the barriers and intended to return once the restaurant became accessible.

The court held that Johnson adequately alleged ADA violations based on:

- too few accessible parking spaces for a lot with approximately 64 spaces; - excessive slope in the accessible parking area and access aisle; - round door knobs requiring tight grasping and twisting of the wrist; and - insufficient knee clearance under the restroom sinks.

The court applied the 1991 accessibility standards to the existing restaurant because the public records showed that the restaurant was constructed in 1954 and did not show later construction or alterations. It stated that the 2010 standards would govern the injunction because remedial work would occur after March 15, 2012.

The court rejected two aspects of Johnson’s parking and counter allegations. It held that improper parking markings and signage did not, by themselves, establish an ADA violation because a violation of the California Building Code is not automatically an ADA violation. It also held that alleging that the transaction counter was cluttered with menus, a tip jar, and a card reader was insufficient to show that Johnson was denied full and equal access to the restaurant’s services.

The court concluded that Johnson plausibly showed that removing the qualifying barriers was readily achievable, meaning easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. Because the defendants defaulted, they did not meet their burden of showing that removal was not readily achievable.

The court also concluded that the ADA violations supported Johnson’s Unruh Act claim. It stated that an ADA violation necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act.

Relief

The court granted the motion for default judgment. It ordered the defendants to bring the restaurant’s parking spaces and slope, door hardware, and restroom sink into compliance with the 2010 accessibility standards no later than six months after service of the injunction.

Johnson sought $16,000 in Unruh Act statutory damages based on four visits. The court found that request unreasonable and awarded $4,000 instead.

Johnson requested $3,896 in attorneys’ fees and $835 in costs. The court reduced the requested hourly rates but found that the 8.1 hours billed were reasonable. It calculated $2,875 in attorneys’ fees and awarded the requested $835 in costs, for a combined award of $3,710 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Disposition

The court’s order: (1) granted Johnson’s motion for default judgment; (2) awarded $4,000 in statutory damages; (3) awarded $3,710 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (4) granted the accessibility injunction. Johnson was ordered to promptly serve the defendants with the order and file proof of service.