Johnson v. Simper Investments, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson sued Simper Investments, Inc., alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that he visited the Main St. Auto Center in Milpitas, California, on three dates in 2019 intending to visit AAMCO Transmission and Precision Tune Auto Care. He alleged that the businesses did not provide wheelchair-accessible parking that complied with the federal law. Simper owns the real property known as the Main St. Auto Center.

Johnson is a wheelchair user with a C-5 quadriplegic condition, cannot walk, has significant manual-dexterity impairments, and uses a specially equipped van. He described himself as an “ADA Tester” who looks for businesses that do not comply with the law. He stated that he planned to return to the property to inquire about the businesses’ services after accessible parking was provided and to check whether they complied with the law.

Motion and Arguments

Simper moved for summary judgment, which is a request to decide claims without a trial because the evidence supposedly shows no genuine dispute about an important fact. Simper argued that Johnson lacked constitutional standing, meaning he had not shown a legally sufficient injury and a genuine likelihood of future injury. Simper also argued that Johnson had identified properties without operating businesses and that the law did not require changes to the facilities because they were built before 1991.

Standing

The court held that, at the summary-judgment stage, Johnson had shown a sufficient intent to return and seek further access to the businesses. The court relied on his stated plans, his claim that he regularly returned to businesses he had sued to check compliance, his visits to the Milpitas area, and photographic evidence showing that he returned to the property twice after his first visit.

The court rejected Simper’s reliance on a four-factor test involving the plaintiff’s proximity to the business, past patronage, plans to return, and travel near the business. The court explained that this test was not controlling precedent and that Johnson did not need to prove past patronage or identify goods he might later buy. The court denied summary judgment based on lack of standing.

ADA Claim

The court found no serious dispute that AAMCO Transmission and Precision Tune Auto Care operated at the Main St. Auto Center. It also found that Johnson presented evidence that the accessible parking spaces did not fully comply with the 2010 accessibility standards, including alleged problems with signage, striping, and the slope of parking spaces and access aisles.

The court noted that existing facilities can be required to remove architectural barriers when removal is “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense. Although Simper argued that the facilities’ construction before 1991 protected them from the claimed requirements, the court stated that, even accepting Simper’s position about the 2010 standards, genuine and material factual disputes remained. Those disputes included whether the parking spaces and access aisles complied with the 1991 standards and whether removing any barriers would have been readily achievable. The court therefore concluded that summary judgment on the ADA claim was unwarranted.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The Unruh Act provides that a violation of an individual’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act also violates the Unruh Act. Because factual disputes remained concerning the ADA claim, the court held that Simper was also not entitled to summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Simper Investments, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The court also scheduled a telephonic case-management conference and directed the parties to submit a joint case-management statement with a proposed schedule.