Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.

Background

Scott Johnson sued JKLM Properties, L.L.C., alleging that wheelchair parking at JKLM’s Main Street Professional Center in Milpitas, California, did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Johnson also alleged that the ADA violation violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that he visited the property three times in 2019 intending to seek acupuncture treatment and that he was currently deterred from returning because of known and possible additional access barriers.

After the court dismissed Johnson’s original complaint with leave to amend, Johnson filed a First Amended Complaint asserting the same two claims. JKLM then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Requests for judicial notice

The court granted all six of JKLM’s requests for judicial notice. Those requests concerned public records, map information, and docket reports listing ADA cases initiated by Johnson. The court granted Johnson’s request to the extent it sought judicial notice of 26 complaints filed in the Northern District of California, but denied the request to the extent it sought judicial notice of disputed allegations contained in those complaints.

Mootness

JKLM argued that the case was moot because, after receiving the complaint, it performed construction work on the parking lot. The work included removing a curb ramp in the access aisle between two accessible parking spaces and resurfacing the spaces and access aisle. JKLM relied on declarations stating that the parking lot complied with the ADA and related standards.

The court held that those declarations were too conclusory to establish that the alleged violations had been remedied. The inspection declaration lacked photographs, actual measurements for many relevant features, and an explanation of the inspector’s methodology. The court also explained that the jurisdictional question and the merits of the ADA claim were intertwined because determining whether the alleged problem had been fixed would effectively require evaluating the substance of the ADA claim. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss on mootness grounds.

Standing

For a private ADA plaintiff seeking an injunction, constitutional standing requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. The court explained that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, allegations that a plaintiff previously visited a public accommodation and is currently deterred from returning by access barriers can establish an actual or imminent injury.

The court found Johnson’s allegations sufficient at the pleading stage. Johnson alleged that he visited the property three times to seek acupuncture treatment and that he was deterred from returning because of existing and possible additional barriers. The court also considered his allegations that he regularly traveled near the property and intended to return for treatment after being told that the facilities were accessible.

The court rejected JKLM’s reliance on a four-factor approach from an earlier district court decision, explaining that the approach was not controlling and that Ninth Circuit precedent did not require prior patronage, proximity, or frequent travel in the manner argued by JKLM. The court also declined to question Johnson’s intent to return based solely on his history of filing ADA lawsuits. It held that Johnson had adequately alleged standing to bring the ADA claim.

Disposition

The court denied JKLM Properties, L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss. The order did not decide whether JKLM violated the ADA or the Unruh Act; it decided that the claims could not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on mootness or standing at that stage.