Johnson v. Opa Campbell LP

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic and cannot walk or use his hands normally. He visited defendants’ restaurant, identified in the opinion as Opa Management Group, Inc. and Opa Campbell LP, in November 2020 and alleged that dining surfaces were inaccessible to people using wheelchairs.

The complaint asserted two claims: a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which allows a private plaintiff to seek an order requiring removal of access barriers, and a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, under which Johnson sought statutory damages. The complaint was filed on March 8, 2021.

After the lawsuit began, defendants hired a Certified Access Specialist to inspect the restaurant. The specialist identified features that did not comply with federal accessibility standards and the California Building Code. Defendants stated that they provided compliant accessible seating within 30 days of being served with the complaint. A June 8, 2021, reinspection confirmed that the relevant table measurements complied with both sets of standards.

Motion and Legal Standard

Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the federal disability claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed. They also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after a federal claim is no longer before it.

A claim is moot when later events eliminate the live dispute. For an Americans with Disabilities Act claim seeking an injunction, a defendant’s voluntary removal of the alleged barrier can make the claim moot if the violation’s effects have been completely eliminated and the conduct is not reasonably expected to recur. The defendant bears the burden of showing mootness, and the court must view disputed evidence in the plaintiff’s favor.

Analysis

The court concluded that defendants’ evidence established that the alleged inaccessible table clearances had been remedied. The inspection showed that the accessible tables met the required standards for knee clearance, unobstructed depth, and surface height. Johnson offered no contrary evidence showing that the identified barriers remained.

The court also found that the violations were not reasonably likely to recur. Defendants quickly hired an access specialist, installed accessible dining tables, and acted after receiving notice of the specific barriers. The court found no indication that defendants had a history of Americans with Disabilities Act violations or had intended to discriminate against people with disabilities. It rejected Johnson’s argument that the decision in a cited case prevented defendants from curing the barriers before Johnson conducted a broader inspection, explaining that defendants should be encouraged to remedy accessibility problems quickly.

The court held that the repairs made Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim moot. The court stated that the Unruh Act claim remained live because it sought damages for past harm, but the claim was in federal court only through supplemental jurisdiction. Because the federal claim had been eliminated before trial, the court found no judicial-economy reason to retain the state-law claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim as moot and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice for refiling in state court. The opinion does not decide the merits of the Unruh Act claim.