Johnson v. Hurwicz

Background

Scott Johnson sued Peter T. Hurwicz and Silicon Valley Auto Body, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. He alleged that the defendants’ commercial auto body shop lacked an access aisle next to an ADA-designated parking space.

After the lawsuit began, the defendants hired Bassam Altwal, a Certified Access Specialist, to inspect the facility. Altwal identified nonconforming features involving parking, the exterior path of travel, and the front entrance. After repairs, Altwal reinspected the facility and reported that the parking, access aisle, exterior route, entrance, and front door met applicable ADA and California Building Code requirements. Altwal issued a Certification of Compliance on June 16, 2021.

ADA Claim

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a party to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged accessibility barriers had been remedied. A claim is moot when there is no longer a live dispute requiring judicial relief.

The court explained that a private plaintiff may seek only injunctive relief under the ADA. To maintain standing for that relief, the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of being injured again. The court treated the jurisdictional motion as a summary-judgment motion because the jurisdictional question and the ADA claim’s substance were intertwined.

The court found that the defendants’ evidence established that the alleged barriers had been fixed and that the changes were not temporary. Johnson did not rebut or object to that evidence and did not request jurisdictional discovery. The court therefore found that the ADA claim was moot.

The court rejected Johnson’s arguments that the motion was untimely because the defendants had already filed an answer, that a site inspection was necessary, and that converting the motion to summary judgment was unfair because the case was at an early stage. The court stated that a Rule 12(b)(1) motion may be made at any time and that the site-inspection deadline had expired without Johnson seeking an order compelling an inspection.

Unruh Act Claim

After dismissing the federal ADA claim, the court considered whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim.

The court noted that it had not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim, that retaining it would not promote judicial economy, and that Johnson had not identified a significant inconvenience from refiling in state court. The court concluded that this was the usual type of case in which a federal court declines to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

Judge Davila granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the ADA claim and dismissed that claim as moot. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed it without prejudice to refiling in state court.