Johnson v. Opa Los Altos, LP
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-04307
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Johnson v. Opa Los Altos, Judge Freeman dismissed Scott Johnson’s ADA claim as moot and declined jurisdiction over his state claim.
Scott Johnson’s federal ADA claim was dismissed as moot, and his state Unruh Act claim was left for possible pursuit in state court; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. Opa Los Altos, LP, and Opa Management Group, Inc. obtained dismissal of the ADA claim.
What happened
In Johnson v. Opa Los Altos, LP, Scott Johnson alleged that Opa’s restaurant had barriers that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought only an order requiring removal of the alleged barriers under the federal claim.
Opa argued that the federal claim was moot because it had stopped operating the restaurant, ended its lease, surrendered the property, and no longer had an ownership interest there. The court accepted the unchallenged evidence that Opa had permanently left the property and concluded that Johnson could not reasonably expect to encounter the alleged barriers there again. Johnson did not provide evidence showing that the court still had jurisdiction over the federal claim.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Opa’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and dismissed Johnson’s complaint without prejudice. The court said it had not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim and that Johnson could bring it in state court, subject to applicable procedural requirements.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Opa Los Altos, LP · No. 5:21-cv-04307
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 18, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson, who uses a wheelchair and has significant manual dexterity impairments, alleged that he encountered access barriers during visits to Opa Authentic Greek Cuisine in March and May 2021. He sued Opa Los Altos, LP, and Opa Management Group, Inc., asserting a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. His ADA claim sought only injunctive relief requiring removal of the alleged barriers.
ADA Claim and Mootness
Opa moved to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It presented evidence that it terminated its occupancy on July 25, 2021, ended its lease on September 30, 2021, vacated the building, surrendered possession, and no longer had an ownership interest in the property.
The court applied a summary-judgment standard to evaluate the factual jurisdictional challenge. Johnson did not provide evidence to counter Opa’s evidence. The court concluded that the restaurant had permanently vacated the property and that Johnson could not plausibly expect to encounter the alleged barriers there in the future. Because his request for prospective injunctive relief was therefore moot, the court granted Opa’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Unruh Act Claim
After dismissing the only federal claim, the court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law Unruh Act claim. The court declined to do so, finding that this was the usual situation in which no federal claims remained and that there was no judicial-economy interest in keeping the case. The court expressly stated that it had not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim. It noted that Johnson could bring that claim in state court, subject to any applicable procedural requirements.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Opa’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) was granted; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim; and Johnson’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.