Johnson v. Fogo De Chao Churrascaria LLC

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk, has significant manual-dexterity impairments, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that he visited the Fogo De Chao restaurant in September and November 2020 and found that it did not provide wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces. According to Johnson, the restaurant’s patio tables had pedestal-style supports that made it difficult for him to pull his wheelchair under the tables. He alleged that sitting farther away from the table caused him to risk spilling food and resulted in embarrassment and frustration.

Johnson’s First Amended Complaint asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which addresses access to privately operated public accommodations, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief, nominal and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The Motion to Dismiss

Fogo De Chao moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It challenged Johnson’s standing to bring the ADA claim and to seek injunctive relief. It also argued that Johnson’s allegations were insufficient and implausible because photographs showed tables at the restaurant being used by other disabled patrons.

Standing

The court rejected the standing challenge. It explained that deciding whether the restaurant’s facilities were accessible to Johnson involved factual issues tied to the merits of the ADA claim. Because Fogo De Chao offered disputed photographs rather than undisputed facts contradicting the complaint, the court accepted Johnson’s allegations that the patio tables lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance.

The court also found that Johnson had standing to seek injunctive relief. Johnson alleged that he was often in the area, intended to return once the restaurant was represented to him as accessible, and was currently deterred from returning because of the alleged inaccessibility. The court held that these allegations were sufficient under Ninth Circuit law and declined to require additional allegations concerning factors such as proximity to Johnson’s residence, the definiteness of his return plans, or the frequency of his travel near the restaurant.

ADA Claim

The court concluded that Johnson had stated a plausible ADA claim. Unlike a complaint containing only general statements that a business lacked accessible facilities, Johnson identified the alleged problem: pedestal-style patio tables that did not provide sufficient knee or toe clearance and made it difficult for him to pull under the table. The court held that these allegations gave Fogo De Chao adequate notice of the alleged accessibility violation.

The court also declined to consider Fogo De Chao’s photographs on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The photographs were not allegations in the complaint, documents incorporated into it, or matters appropriate for judicial notice. Johnson disputed what the photographs showed and whether the tables were accessible to him.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

Fogo De Chao did not specifically address the Unruh Act claim. The court stated that an ADA violation constitutes a per se violation of the Unruh Act. Because Johnson’s ADA claim could proceed, the court held that the Unruh Act claim could proceed as well.

The court denied Fogo De Chao’s Motion to Dismiss. It ordered Fogo De Chao to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within 14 days of the order. This ruling allowed the claims to continue; it did not decide the ultimate merits of whether the restaurant violated either statute.