Johnson v. Garden Court Inn LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair. He alleged that he visited the hotel on July 2, 2019, after requesting an accessible room with two beds. According to Johnson, the hotel’s reserved parking was not accessible because of excessive slopes, the requested room was unavailable, and the same parking problem remained when he returned about a month later. He also alleged that the hotel’s online reservation system did not allow him to independently determine whether the hotel or a room met his accessibility needs.

Johnson asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he would return to the hotel when its website reservation system was represented to be accessible.

The Motion to Dismiss

Garden Court Inn moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It contended that the ADA claim was moot because the hotel complied with ADA requirements. The hotel also argued that Johnson lacked Article III standing because he had not adequately alleged an intent to return. Finally, it argued that the court should dismiss or decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

To support its mootness argument, the hotel submitted a declaration from its general manager stating that the hotel had the required accessible parking, complied with slope requirements, and offered accessible rooms, including three rooms with two queen beds.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the mootness argument. It explained that the hotel’s compliance assertions overlapped with the merits of Johnson’s ADA claim and that resolving those factual issues at the motion-to-dismiss stage would be inappropriate. The court found the general manager’s declaration conclusory and of little evidentiary value. It also noted that discovery was stayed, the parties had not completed a site inspection, and Johnson had not yet had an opportunity to develop evidence responding to the hotel’s assertions.

The court also rejected the standing argument. For an ADA access-discrimination claim seeking an injunction, a plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, which can be shown through an injury and an intent to return or through deterrence from returning. The court held that Johnson’s allegations that he had visited the hotel multiple times, traveled to the area regularly, and intended to return when the website became accessible were enough at this stage. The court also declined to question standing based on Johnson’s history of bringing ADA lawsuits or his status as an “ADA tester.”

Because it denied the challenge to federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court did not reach the hotel’s argument that supplemental jurisdiction was unavailable. It separately rejected the hotel’s request that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Disposition

The court denied Garden Court Inn’s motion to dismiss. The initial case-management scheduling order remained in effect.