Johnson v. Right Crons Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that Right Crons Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint alleged that Right Crons owned property at or about 244 N. Jackson Ave. in San Jose, California, where Luminance Aesthetics operated.

Johnson, who has level C-5 quadriplegia and uses a wheelchair, alleged that he visited Luminance in April 2019, June 2019, and July 2020. He said he encountered inaccessible parking, including an overly steep parking stall and access aisle; inaccessible restroom features, including a round door handle, no toilet grab bars, and no sink knee clearance; and a round handle on the entrance door. He alleged that these conditions caused difficulty and discomfort and that he intended to return after the property was made accessible.

Right Crons moved to dismiss. Its motion argued that Johnson had never visited the facility and therefore had not suffered an injury sufficient to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court also considered evidence from Luminance’s owner stating that the business operated by appointment only, did not accept walk-in patients, and had no record that Johnson made appointments during the dates he identified.

Standing Analysis

The court first rejected Right Crons’ factual challenge at the pleading stage. Although a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction permits the court to consider evidence outside the complaint, the court found that the owner’s declaration did not show that Johnson was barred from visiting the property, parking lot, or business without an appointment or questionnaire. The court therefore found that Right Crons had not provided enough evidence at that stage to establish that Johnson lacked an injury-in-fact based on his alleged visits.

The court then considered Right Crons’ facial challenge to Johnson’s allegations that he intended to return. A plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under the ADA must show a sufficient likelihood of being harmed again. The court examined the distance from Johnson’s home, his past visits, the definiteness of his plans to return, and his frequency of travel near the business.

The court found that the property was nearly 130 miles from Johnson’s home, weighing in Right Crons’ favor. Johnson’s allegation of three past visits weighed slightly in his favor. But the court found that he had no specific plans or timeframe for returning, had not alleged concrete plans to visit the property or the Bay Area, and had presented no evidence of specific ties to the area. The court also found that his deterrence allegations were theoretical because he did not explain why he preferred Luminance over other aesthetic-medicine centers or identify a concrete future plan to visit.

Because Johnson had not shown an imminent future injury, the court concluded that he lacked Article III standing and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his ADA claim. The court did not decide whether the alleged physical barriers violated the ADA.

Disposition

The court granted Right Crons’ motion to dismiss Johnson’s ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice. The court found that amendment would not be futile, dismissed Johnson’s claims with leave to amend, and permitted him to file an amended complaint by August 25, 2021. The court stated that Johnson could not add new claims or parties without court permission or the parties’ agreement.