Johnson v. Sotoodeh

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction under the ADA and damages under the Unruh Act. Johnson alleged that he visited the Sotoodehs’ Business Park in March and July 2020 and encountered a dumpster blocking wheelchair-accessible parking and a lack of accessible entrance-door hardware. He alleged that these conditions denied him full and equal access and that he intended to return after being told the property was accessible.

Hooman and Helga Sotoodeh filed an answer and a counterclaim for intentional misrepresentation. The counterclaim alleged that Johnson had filed more than 4,500 ADA lawsuits, routinely used boilerplate complaints, and was pursuing a scheme to obtain money settlements from businesses and property owners. It also alleged that Johnson did not personally encounter the claimed barriers, that the businesses at the property were closed during the relevant period because of pandemic restrictions, and that an able-bodied person had staged the photographed dumpster condition. The opinion describes these matters as allegations in the counterclaim and supporting materials; it does not resolve their truth.

Motion and Legal Standard

Johnson moved to strike the counterclaim under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly called the anti-SLAPP statute. A SLAPP suit is litigation intended to chill or punish protected speech or petitioning activity. Courts apply a two-step test: first, they determine whether the challenged claim arises from protected activity; second, they determine whether the party asserting the claim has shown a legally sufficient claim with a reasonable factual basis for success.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the counterclaim was based on Johnson’s allegations supporting his ADA and Unruh Act claims. It therefore found the first anti-SLAPP step satisfied because pursuing those claims was protected activity.

For the second step, the court held that the counterclaim was barred by California’s litigation privilege. That privilege generally protects participants from tort liability based on statements made in judicial proceedings, except for malicious prosecution claims. The Sotoodehs did not dispute that the privilege applied. Instead, they cited decisions concerning whether Johnson had standing to bring his ADA and Unruh Act claims and relied on affidavits from business owners. The court held that those materials did not overcome the litigation privilege, which applied even if the alleged misrepresentations were true. The court noted that other possible responses to litigation-related misconduct could include sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and potentially a malicious-prosecution claim after the present case ended.

Ruling and Case Management

The court GRANTED Johnson’s motion to strike the counterclaim. The order does not state whether the counterclaim may be refiled or whether the strike was with or without prejudice.

The court also lifted the discovery stay imposed by General Order 56 for the limited purpose of completing Johnson’s deposition. The parties were excused from conducting the joint site inspection and meeting related deadlines until after the deposition. The deposition was required to occur at a mutually convenient time after the parties exchanged initial disclosures and no later than April 2, 2021. Afterward, the parties were required to meet and confer about scheduling the site inspection and completing the remaining General Order 56 requirements.

The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.