Johnson v. Mo's TBJ Campbell LP

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he uses a wheelchair because he is a level C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk. He alleged that he visited the defendants’ restaurant, Mo’s Campbell, in November 2020 and encountered outdoor dining surfaces without sufficient knee and toe clearance for wheelchair users. He brought claims against Mo’s TBJ Campbell LP and Hero Adams Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

After the complaint was filed, the defendants hired a certified access specialist to inspect the restaurant. The specialist identified features of the indoor and outdoor dining tables that did not comply with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and the 2013 California Building Code. The defendants took steps to correct the accessible-seating barriers within 30 days of being served with the complaint. They later notified Johnson that the barriers had been removed, and a June 2021 inspection found that the dining surfaces complied with both sets of standards.

Motion and Legal Standards

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits a challenge to the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been corrected and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—its authority to hear related state-law claims—over the Unruh Act claim.

The court explained that the defendants were making a factual challenge to jurisdiction and could rely on evidence outside the complaint. A claim is moot when later events make it clear that the challenged conduct is not reasonably expected to recur and the effects of the alleged violation have been completely and permanently eliminated.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Johnson’s argument that the motion was untimely because the defendants had already filed an answer. It held that an objection based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.

For the ADA claim, the court found that the defendants promptly made structural changes to the restaurant’s tables. The record contained no evidence that the defendants had a history of ADA violations or knew about the barriers before the lawsuit. Johnson offered no contrary evidence establishing continuing jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that the alleged barriers had been remedied and that the ADA claim was moot.

For the Unruh Act claim, the court found that Johnson based the claim solely on the alleged ADA violation. Johnson did not assert an independent Unruh Act violation based on intentional discrimination or willful, affirmative misconduct. Because the ADA claim was moot, the court concluded that the Unruh Act claim was also moot. The court stated that it had not considered the merits of that state-law claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Johnson’s ADA claim as moot. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice.