Johnson v. Reimal Family Limited Partnership

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that wheelchair-accessible parking and paths of travel at property owned by Reimal Family Limited Partnership did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He said he visited the property four times in 2019 to obtain goods and services from Gilroy Family Chiropractic, which was located there. Johnson uses a wheelchair and alleged that the barriers prevented access.

Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants admitted the allegations about the former physical barriers but said the barriers had been removed. They submitted declarations and an inspection report stating that improvements were completed by June 2020 and that the property no longer had the alleged barriers. They also invited Johnson and his counsel to inspect the property, but they did not do so.

The defendants filed two motions: a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, to dismiss the ADA claim as moot; and a motion for partial summary judgment concerning the amount of statutory damages available under the Unruh Act. Johnson opposed the dismissal motion but did not oppose the summary-judgment motion in his written filing.

ADA Claim and Mootness

The court explained that an ADA claim may become moot when the challenged barriers have been removed, but that courts generally should not decide mootness on a motion to dismiss when the existence of the barriers is disputed and also relates to the merits of the ADA claim.

Here, however, the court found that the facts were not meaningfully disputed. The defendants provided evidence from an architect, a Certified Access Specialist, and others showing that the barriers had been removed. The court found that the inspection report contained measurements and photographs and adequately supported the expert’s conclusion. Johnson did not submit competing evidence.

The court also rejected Johnson’s argument that the motion was premature because he had not personally inspected the improvements. It concluded that the district’s discovery stay for ADA cases did not prevent voluntary site inspections or the filing of a Rule 12(b) motion. Because the alleged barriers had been resolved, the court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim as moot.

Unruh Act Statutory Damages

The defendants separately sought summary judgment on whether Johnson reasonably returned to the property four times. Summary judgment is a decision that may be entered when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that California law imposes a general duty to mitigate damages, meaning that a plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to avoid damages that could have been prevented. The court concluded that this duty applies to Johnson’s Unruh Act claim. It noted that the statute provides statutory damages of at least $4,000 for each violation, but also requires consideration of the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s conduct in certain multiple-visit or deterrence situations.

The court found that Johnson did not notify the defendants or the chiropractic office about the access barriers. The office was open only two or three days per week and by appointment, and Johnson had not contacted it to schedule an appointment. The court also considered evidence that Johnson traveled more than 150 miles each way to the property. It concluded that a reasonable consumer might visit an appointment-only office once without an appointment, but would not return four times without contacting the business or attempting to schedule one.

The court further stated that the facts strongly indicated that Johnson’s repeat visits were intended to increase, or “stack,” statutory damages rather than obtain chiropractic services. It concluded that Johnson acted unreasonably as a matter of law and granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Johnson could recover statutory damages for only one instance of visiting the property.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim as moot and granted the motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of statutory damages under the Unruh Act. The opinion does not state that either motion was granted with or without prejudice.