Johnson v. Simper Investments, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a California resident with physical disabilities, including that he is a C-5 quadriplegic, uses a wheelchair, and has significant manual-dexterity impairments. He alleged that Simper Investments, Inc. owned real property located at or about 1624 S. Main Street in Milpitas, California, during the relevant period and currently owns it.

Johnson alleged that Main St. Auto Center was open to the public and was a place of public accommodation and business establishment. He alleged that he visited the facility in June, October, and November 2019 to use its goods or services, in part to determine whether it complied with disability-access laws. He further alleged that the defendant failed to provide wheelchair-accessible parking meeting the applicable Americans with Disabilities Act standards.

Motion to Dismiss

Simper Investments moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim. The defendant argued that no business operated at 1624 S. Main Street and that no business had operated there since before 2017.

Johnson did not dispute that the identified address had not been occupied since 2017. He argued that Main St. Auto Center was a business park containing numerous businesses. The court noted, however, that the amended complaint referred only to the property at or about 1624 S. Main Street and Main St. Auto Center. It did not identify the names or addresses of the businesses Johnson allegedly tried to visit.

Ruling

The court concluded that, because Johnson did not dispute that no business was operating or open to the public at the only address identified in the complaint, the complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). That rule requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court held that the pleading might be corrected by adding additional facts. It therefore granted Simper Investments’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 28 days from the date of the order. The court did not decide the underlying disability-access allegations on their merits.