Johnson v. DiVittorio

Background

Scott Johnson sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he encountered access barriers during an October 2020 visit to Garcia’s Taqueria, including insufficient knee or toe clearance under outdoor dining surfaces and pull-bar door handles that required tight grasping. Garcia’s Taqueria Inc. owned the restaurant. Roy J. DiVittorio and Adrienne L. DiVittorio owned the property and were sued individually and as trustees of The DiVittorio Family Trust.

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). They argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed.

ADA Claim

The ADA claim sought relief that was limited to an injunction and attorney’s fees. The court explained that a claim becomes moot, and the plaintiff loses standing, when the defendant has remedied all alleged ADA violations. Because the defendants made a factual challenge to jurisdiction, the court considered evidence outside the complaint and applied the summary-judgment standard to the jurisdictional issue.

The defendants submitted a corrected declaration from Bassam Altwal, a licensed access specialist. Altwal stated that he inspected the facility, identified noncompliant outdoor dining surfaces, and later reviewed the defendants’ remediation measures, including accessible indoor and outdoor tables and the door hardware. He concluded that those items complied with accessibility requirements.

The court held that the corrected declaration established that the barriers alleged in the complaint had been removed and that no genuine dispute of material fact remained on remediation. The court rejected Johnson’s arguments that the motion was untimely, that discovery had not yet occurred, and that more time was needed for a site inspection. It also concluded that the voluntary-cessation doctrine did not prevent dismissal because the table changes were structural, there was no evidence of past violations or an intent to violate the ADA in the future, and recurrence was not reasonably likely.

The motion to dismiss the ADA claim was GRANTED.

Unruh Act Claim

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court considered Johnson’s Unruh Act claim under supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear certain related state-law claims. The court stated that courts in the district commonly decline supplemental jurisdiction over an Unruh Act claim after dismissing the parallel ADA claim. It likewise declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here because doing so would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

The motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim was GRANTED.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the ADA claim as moot and granted dismissal of the Unruh Act claim after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. The opinion does not state that either dismissal was with or without prejudice.