Johnson v. Smith

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he is a C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and a specially equipped van. He alleged that he visited Stucco Supply in March, April, and June 2021 and encountered parking that did not comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Johnson alleged that he intended to return to use the store’s goods or services and to determine whether it complied with disability-access laws, but that he was deterred by the known barriers and uncertainty about other barriers.

Johnson sued under Title III of the ADA, which addresses access to privately operated places of public accommodation, and under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants were Daniel H. Smith and Wilma J. Smith, individually and as trustees of the SMITH 1978 Trust Agreement dated September 26, 1978. 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.

Issues

The defendants argued that Johnson’s ADA claim was moot because Stucco Supply had the required disabled parking. They alternatively argued that Johnson lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he had not adequately alleged an intent to return or legitimate deterrence from returning. The defendants also challenged the related Unruh Act claim.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a private ADA plaintiff may obtain an injunction only by showing a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. Under Ninth Circuit law, an ADA plaintiff may establish standing either by showing deterrence or by showing an injury in fact together with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.

The court held that Johnson’s allegations were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. He alleged that he would return once Stucco Supply was represented to be accessible but was currently deterred by the existing barriers and uncertainty about other barriers. The court declined to require additional allegations about factors such as the store’s distance from Johnson’s residence, his past patronage, the definiteness of his plans, or how often he traveled nearby.

The court also addressed mootness. A claim may become moot if later events clearly show that the alleged violation cannot reasonably recur and the effects of the violation have been completely and permanently eliminated. The defendants submitted photographs that they said showed a compliant van-accessible parking space. Johnson disputed the accessibility facts, however, and the court found that whether the barriers had been remedied was intertwined with the merits of the ADA claim. The court therefore treated the complaint’s allegations as true for purposes of the jurisdictional challenge. It also noted that the record did not clearly establish who took the photographs, when they were taken, or whether an accessibility specialist or expert had reviewed the parking lot.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It rejected the challenge to Johnson’s standing to assert the ADA claim and denied the motion as to the Unruh Act claim because the ADA claim had not been dismissed. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding General Order 56 deadlines and file a joint status report by February 16, 2022.

Classification note

This is a procedural order because the court denied a Rule 12(b)(1) motion addressing subject-matter jurisdiction, standing, and mootness without finally deciding whether Stucco Supply violated the ADA.