Johnson v. Straight Arrow Properties, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he visited the Little Orchard Business Park in January, March, and July 2020 intending to use goods or services, including those at California’s Finest Detail Supply. He alleged barriers involving parking, door hardware, and sales counters. His amended complaint asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The original defendants were Straight Arrow Properties, LLC, and Little Orchard Business Park Owners Association. Johnson dismissed Straight Arrow, leaving the Association as the remaining defendant. The Association moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Judicial Notice

The Association asked the court to take judicial notice of an enabling declaration for the Association and the original and amended complaints. The court explained that the enabling declaration was a recorded document that could properly be considered for judicial notice. The court did not need to take judicial notice of the complaints because they were already part of the case record.

ADA Claim

The court stated that an ADA claim requires allegations showing that the plaintiff has a disability covered by the statute, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the plaintiff was denied access because of the disability.

The court found several pleading deficiencies. First, the amended complaint did not identify where the alleged ADA violations occurred. It referred to the Little Orchard Business Park and California’s Finest Detail Supply but did not identify their locations.

Second, the complaint did not adequately allege what ownership or operational interest the Association had in the property where the violations allegedly occurred. The complaint stated that the Association and Straight Arrow owned portions of property at or about 1847 Little Orchard Street in San Jose, California, but did not connect that address to the business park or the supply store. The court also found that the allegation of ownership of unspecified portions of the property did not establish that the Association owned the portions at issue, as opposed to Straight Arrow or another person or entity.

The court recognized that ADA liability can extend to an entity that operates a place of public accommodation even if it does not own the property. But it found that the complaint’s statement that the Association operated the relevant commercial common areas and parking spaces lacked facts showing that the Association had the type of control, management, or authority required to qualify as an operator.

Third, the complaint did not adequately allege that property owned or operated by the Association was a place of public accommodation. Its statement that the supply store and business park were public accommodations and facilities open to the public was conclusory. The court noted that the property appeared to include both commercial buildings and condominiums and required more information about where the violations occurred and why those areas qualified as public accommodations.

Unruh Act Claim

The Unruh Civil Rights Act generally prohibits intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. A violation of the ADA can also establish a violation of the Unruh Act without proof that the discrimination was intentional. Johnson did not allege that the Association intentionally discriminated against him; his Unruh Act claim rested solely on the alleged ADA violation. Because the ADA claim was not adequately pleaded, the court concluded that the Unruh Act claim was also inadequately pleaded.

Disposition

The court granted the Association’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend. It permitted Johnson to file a second amended complaint within 14 days of the order if he could address the identified deficiencies while complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The Association was required to respond within 14 days after any second amended complaint was filed, and any later motion to dismiss would follow the normal briefing schedule.