Johnson v. Medvill 1, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that Medvill 1, LLC operates an acupuncture clinic in Saratoga, California, that is inaccessible to people with disabilities. Johnson, who uses a wheelchair and a specially equipped van, alleged that he visited the clinic three times in May and June 2018 and encountered three barriers: a disability parking space without a compliant access aisle, steps without a ramp on the path to the entrance, and a round door knob requiring tight grasping and wrist twisting.

Johnson alleged that the barriers continued to exist. He also alleged that he intended to return to the clinic for acupuncture care during trips to the federal courthouse in San Jose and to check whether the clinic complied with disability-access laws. He said he was deterred from making an appointment until he could confirm that the barriers had been removed.

Johnson asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court had previously dismissed his original complaint after he did not oppose an earlier motion to dismiss, but allowed him to amend. Johnson then filed a first amended complaint, and Medvill filed the motion addressed in this order.

Defendant’s Arguments

Medvill moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Medvill argued that Johnson lacked Article III standing—a constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and sufficiently imminent injury—to pursue his ADA claim for injunctive relief. Specifically, Medvill disputed Johnson’s intent to return and argued that he was not genuinely deterred from visiting the clinic.

Medvill also argued that the court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim or should decline to exercise that jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a related state-law claim arising from the same facts as a federal claim, subject to statutory limits.

Standing

The court held that Johnson adequately alleged Article III standing at the pleading stage. The court explained that a private plaintiff seeking an ADA injunction must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent, allegations that the plaintiff previously visited a public accommodation and is currently deterred from returning because of access barriers can be enough.

The court found Johnson’s allegations sufficient because he alleged three prior visits, personally encountered specific barriers, intended to return, and was deterred from making an appointment until the barriers were removed or confirmed to have been removed. The court also considered Johnson’s allegations that he regularly visited the San Jose area for courthouse matters and viewed the clinic as a place where he could obtain acupuncture care.

The court rejected Medvill’s reliance on Johnson’s history of filing more than 1,100 ADA lawsuits in the district. It concluded that Ninth Circuit precedent did not permit the court, at this stage, to question the sincerity of Johnson’s stated intent to return based solely on his prior ADA litigation. The court also rejected Medvill’s argument that Johnson’s pending criminal charges would prevent him from returning to the clinic.

The court noted, however, that the criminal charges could later be relevant to the equitable defense of unclean hands. That defense can limit equitable relief when a plaintiff has engaged in an unconscionable act directly related to the relief sought. The court said it was premature to decide that issue without briefing or more information and therefore only held that Johnson had standing at that point.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

The court held that it had supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim because that claim arose from the same facts as the ADA claim. The court declined to reject jurisdiction based on Medvill’s argument that Johnson was a high-frequency litigant who had selected the federal forum improperly.

The court found no exceptional circumstances requiring it to decline jurisdiction. It noted that other decisions from the Northern District of California had exercised jurisdiction over related Unruh Act claims and concluded that it would not depart from those decisions here.

Disposition

The court granted Medvill’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the identified public records and other materials. It denied Medvill 1, LLC’s motion to dismiss. The order addressed standing and jurisdiction; it did not decide the ultimate merits of Johnson’s ADA or Unruh Act claims.