Johnson v. Boitano

Background

Scott Johnson sued Steven F. Boitano and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that, during a November 2020 visit to the office of Boitano & Sargent, LLP in San Jose, California, he encountered barriers involving wheelchair-accessible parking and door hardware at property owned by the defendants.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and alternatively under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Johnson had not stated a claim for relief. The court had previously allowed Johnson to conduct limited discovery after an earlier motion to dismiss.

Defendants’ arguments

The defendants argued that the property was not a place of public accommodation when Johnson visited. They said the firm provided services only to clients who first made appointments and that, because of Santa Clara County COVID-19 health orders, any appointment would have occurred by video conference rather than at the office.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the ADA prohibits discrimination by a place of public accommodation and that the statutory definition expressly includes an accountant’s office. The defendants had not shown that requiring appointments made the accounting office unusual compared with other accounting firms. The court also noted that the statute includes other businesses commonly accessed by appointment.

The defendants presented evidence that the firm required appointments, but Johnson disputed those facts. The court found that this factual dispute prevented dismissal under the summary-judgment standard applicable to the defendants’ factual challenge to jurisdiction. The court further reasoned that the alleged barriers concerned the parking lot and door hardware, and the record did not show that Johnson would have been unable to access those features even if an appointment had been required.

The court took judicial notice of certain county health orders and press releases for the limited purpose of considering the defendants’ arguments. It concluded that the orders did not establish, on the current record, that the property was not a place of public accommodation at the relevant time. The court also noted evidence that the firm remained open during the shelter-in-place orders. Although the court expressed concern about Johnson’s conduct in visiting partly to test ADA compliance, it did not decide that issue as a basis for dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the ADA claim on both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. Because the ADA claim would proceed, the court also denied the defendants’ request to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court ordered the defendants to answer the complaint by October 29, 2021, and directed the parties to proceed under General Order 56.