Johnson v. Straight Arrow Properties, LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he encountered access barriers during visits to the Little Orchard Business Park in January, March, and July 2020. The alleged barriers involved accessible parking, door hardware, and sales counters at California’s Finest Detail Supply. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson alleged that Robert Brent Hughes and Kathryn Marie Hughes, trustees of the Robert and Kathryn Hughes Living Trust dated November 18, 2014, owned the real property containing California’s Finest Detail Supply. He also alleged that the Little Orchard Business Park Owners Association owned and operated the commercial common areas, including accessible parking, at the property.

The court had previously dismissed Johnson’s first amended complaint with leave to amend. That order identified problems with the locations of the alleged violations and with Johnson’s allegations that property owned or operated by the Association was a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The second amended complaint added more allegations and named the Hughes Defendants. The Hughes Defendants filed an answer.

Motion and Analysis

The Association moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that the second amended complaint still did not identify where the Little Orchard Business Park was located, did not connect the property at 1847 Little Orchard Street in San Jose to the alleged discrimination, and did not adequately allege that the Association owned or operated a place of public accommodation.

The court rejected those arguments. It concluded that allegations in paragraphs 4 through 7 and 9 through 10 provided more detail about the Association’s interest in the business park and the location of the alleged violations. The court also found that the additional allegations about the Hughes Defendants helped distinguish their responsibilities from the Association’s responsibilities.

The court further held that the second amended complaint’s allegations were sufficient under the notice-pleading standard at this stage of the litigation. The court had previously dismissed the Unruh Act claim because it was based only on the alleged ADA violation. In this order, the court concluded that Johnson had now adequately alleged an Unruh Act claim as well.

Disposition

The court denied the Association’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It ordered the Association to answer within 14 days of the order and stated that the requirements and deadlines of General Order 56 remained in place. The order decided only whether the pleaded claims were sufficient to continue at this stage; it did not decide whether Johnson would ultimately prevail.