Johnson v. 5530 Monterey Road LLC

Background

Scott Johnson, who has physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair, sued 5530 Monterey Road LLC and Travel Inn Gilroy LLC. He alleged that the defendants owned a motel in Gilroy, California, that was open to the public and contained physical barriers that did not comply with disability-access laws. His claims arose under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson alleged problems involving accessible parking, an accessible guestroom, the lobby entrance door hardware, and transaction counters. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a party to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the alleged barriers had been remedied, making the claims moot, meaning there was no longer a live dispute for the court to decide.

Evidence about the alleged barriers

The defendants submitted a declaration from Craig Lobnow stating that the accessible parking complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act, that the property had one accessible guestroom, and that the lobby entrance door hardware complied with accessibility requirements.

Johnson submitted a declaration from Tim Wegman after a joint inspection. Wegman reported that portions of the parking area had slopes of 2.4% and 2.3%. He also identified alleged problems with the accessible guestroom’s shower, including the height of the shower spray unit, a shower seat that could not be folded, and a seat that measured 13.5 inches from the side wall to its front edge. The defendants’ supplemental declaration disputed those measurements and stated that the conditions had been corrected or complied with applicable standards. The defendants did not address Johnson’s allegation concerning inaccessible transaction counters.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that, in this type of disability-access case, whether physical barriers continue to exist can involve both jurisdiction and the substance of the claim. As a result, dismissal for mootness is generally inappropriate when the parties submit conflicting evidence about whether the barriers were remedied.

The court found genuine factual disputes about the parking slope and the shower’s compliance with accessibility standards. The court also noted that the defendants had not rebutted the allegation about inaccessible transaction counters. Because the court could not determine on the motion to dismiss that all alleged barriers had been resolved, it denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim on mootness grounds.

The court also considered whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims arising from the same dispute. The court concluded that the claims would be most efficiently litigated together and that the defendants had not identified a strong reason to decline jurisdiction. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss the state-law claims as well.

Disposition

The court concluded that defendants’ motion to dismiss was DENIED. The court gave Johnson 20 days to amend his complaint to add factual allegations about physical barriers discussed in his briefing and expert declaration that were not clearly alleged in the complaint. The court also reminded the parties of their settlement-meeting and mediation-related responsibilities under General Order 56.