Johnson v. Simper Investments, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson filed a second amended complaint against Simper Investments, Inc. concerning alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) at the Main St. Auto Center. The court had previously granted Simper’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint because Johnson had not identified the names and addresses of the businesses he allegedly tried to visit to test ADA compliance.

The second amended complaint identified AAMCO Transmission and Precision Tune Auto Care among the businesses at the center. Johnson filed it three days after the court-ordered deadline. Although he did not properly request permission for the late filing, the court considered the complaint because Johnson’s counsel reported losing power at the Texas office during an unusually severe period of cold weather, the delay was short, and Simper identified no prejudice.

Arguments

Simper argued that the second amended complaint should be dismissed because the businesses identified by Johnson were indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Simper also argued that the building fully complied with the ADA. In the alternative, Simper asked the court to treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

Simper separately argued in its reply brief that the case should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court declined to consider that argument because Simper raised it for the first time in the reply.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the businesses were sufficiently identified to allow Simper to respond to Johnson’s allegations. It rejected Simper’s argument that the businesses were indispensable parties. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that a landlord has an independent obligation to comply with the ADA that cannot be eliminated by contract. Simper had provided no case law supporting its interpretation of Rule 19 in ADA compliance cases. The court therefore held that the case could proceed without joining AAMCO Transmission and Precision Tune Auto Care.

The court also denied Simper’s request to decide the ADA compliance issues at the motion-to-dismiss stage. At that stage, the court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and interpret the pleadings in the light most favorable to the party opposing dismissal. The court stated that resolving adequately pleaded factual disputes was inappropriate at that stage. It noted that Simper remained free to file a properly noticed motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court denied Simper Investments, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. It set a telephonic case-management conference for July 20, 2021, and required a joint case-management statement by July 13, 2021. The opinion does not decide whether the alleged ADA violations occurred or whether the building complied with the ADA.