Johnson v. Blackburn

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that Double D’s Sports Grille, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that the restaurant’s outside dining surfaces lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance and that the restaurant failed to provide accessible customer parking. He also alleged that he planned to return to the restaurant.

The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Johnson’s request for an injunction because the alleged access barriers had been removed. They submitted evidence that the restaurant had installed compliant tables and did not provide parking. A licensed accessibility inspector inspected the premises and found it compliant. At a January 13, 2022 joint site inspection, Johnson’s expert indicated that the site was compliant, and later submitted a declaration stating that there had been no violations at that inspection.

Court’s analysis

The defendants made a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning they relied on evidence outside the complaint. In that situation, Johnson had to provide evidence showing that the court still had jurisdiction. The court applied the summary-judgment standard because the jurisdictional facts overlapped with the substance of the ADA claim.

The court held that the undisputed evidence showed that the two alleged barriers had been fully remedied, if they had existed. The dining-surface clearance was compliant, and the restaurant did not provide parking that could violate accessibility requirements. Because no real and immediate threat of repeated injury remained, Johnson lacked standing to seek an injunction and the ADA claim was moot. The court rejected Johnson’s arguments that the motion was untimely, premature, or barred by the exception for voluntary cessation. It concluded that replacing the tables was a structural change making recurrence of the alleged violation unlikely.

After addressing the ADA claim, the court stated that Johnson’s Unruh Act claim was before it only through supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims. The court declined to exercise that jurisdiction because retaining the state claim would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity.

Disposition

The court GRANTS the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court also ORDERS Johnson to reimburse the defendants $1,904 for unnecessary legal work incurred after the January 13 site inspection. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.