Johnson v. Techbusiness Resources, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he uses a wheelchair for mobility and visited Old Floors in March and July 2020. He alleged that Old Floors lacked a compliant accessible parking space and that Techbusiness owned the real property at issue. His complaint asserted an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim and a California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. For the ADA claim, he sought only injunctive relief—an order requiring removal of the alleged access barriers.

Motion and evidence

Techbusiness moved to dismiss the ADA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Techbusiness argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed by October 2020. It submitted a declaration and report from Michael Miyaki, a Certified Access Specialist, stating that an accessible parking space, access aisle, required signage, compliant slopes, and an appropriate path of travel were present at Old Floors. Miyaki also concluded that the space met relevant size and marking requirements.

Johnson did not respond to the motion or submit contrary evidence. Because the jurisdictional issue was intertwined with the ADA claim, the court applied the standard used for summary judgment, asking whether the evidence showed any genuine dispute about a material fact.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that a claim seeking only injunctive relief can become moot when later events remove the alleged barrier and make it clear that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to encounter it again. The court found that the evidence that the alleged ADA violations were no longer present was uncontroverted. It therefore found Johnson’s ADA claim moot and granted Techbusiness’s motion to dismiss that claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Johnson’s remaining Unruh Act claim. It concluded that continuing to hear that claim would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity.

Disposition

The court granted Techbusiness’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s ADA claim under Rule 12(b)(1). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice to Johnson refiling it in state court.