Johnson v. Moraya Investments LLC

Background

Scott Johnson, an individual with a disability who uses a wheelchair, sued Moraya Investments LLC, which owns and operates the Heritage Inn Express motel in Hayward, California. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

During an October 16, 2018 visit, Johnson encountered accessibility barriers involving the motel’s parking, the entrance path to the office, the service counter, and the availability of an accessible room with two beds. He said these barriers caused him difficulty, discomfort, and frustration. He later stated that he was in the area on January 28, 2019, and March 12, 2019, but was deterred from attempting to use the motel because he knew about the barriers.

Johnson moved for summary judgment, asking for judgment on both claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law. Moraya filed a limited opposition, challenging only part of Johnson’s requested Unruh Act damages.

Federal Disability-Access Claim

The court explained that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation. Johnson sought an order requiring Moraya to provide and maintain accessible parking, an accessible guestroom, an accessible path of travel into the motel office, and an accessible service counter.

Moraya did not oppose summary judgment on this claim or the requested injunctive relief. The court therefore granted Johnson’s motion for summary judgment on the federal disability-access claim. The parties were directed to prepare a proposed stipulation and order concerning the requested injunctive relief for the court’s approval.

Unruh Civil Rights Act Claim

The Unruh Act allows statutory damages when a violation of accessibility standards denies a person full and equal access on a particular occasion. The statute permits recovery when the person personally encountered a violation or was deterred from accessing the business, but a person claiming deterrence must show both actual knowledge of a violation and an intent to use the business on that particular occasion.

Moraya did not oppose an award of $4,000 for Johnson’s October 16, 2018 visit. The court granted that unopposed portion of the motion and awarded Johnson $4,000 in statutory damages.

Moraya opposed Johnson’s request for another $4,000 based on the January and March 2019 occasions. The court found no dispute that Johnson knew about the barriers and that the barriers would have denied him full and equal access if he had used the motel. But Johnson’s declaration did not state that he intended to use the motel on either date. The court also noted that a reasonable jury could conclude he was in the area for litigation purposes rather than because he intended to use the motel. The court therefore found material factual disputes about the claimed deterrence damages and denied that portion of Johnson’s motion.

Disposition

The court held that Johnson’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. It granted summary judgment on the federal disability-access claim and on the Unruh Act claim based on the October 16, 2018 visit, awarding $4,000. It denied summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim based on the alleged deterred visits in January and March 2019. That deterred-visits claim was the only remaining claim, and the court directed the parties to propose a pretrial and trial schedule.