Johnson v. Supakam Corp.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he visited a Togo’s restaurant owned by Supakam Corp. in San Jose, California, once in March 2021 and twice in April 2021. Johnson alleged that the restaurant did not provide an outdoor dining surface with enough knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users. He alleged that he is a C-5 quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.

Johnson asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. He sought an injunction requiring compliance with those laws, nominal damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorney fees and costs.

Supakam’s Motion

Supakam moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally valid claim.

Under Rule 12(b)(1), Supakam argued that:

- Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim was moot because Supakam had adopted policies and procedures intended to prevent the alleged problem from recurring. - Johnson lacked standing to bring his Unruh Act claim because the missing table resulted from a temporary employee mistake.

Under Rule 12(b)(6), Supakam argued that Johnson’s allegations about reasonable changes to Supakam’s policies were conclusory and that Johnson could recover under the Unruh Act for only one visit because he allegedly failed to reduce his damages by notifying the restaurant after his first visit. Supakam also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Judicial Notice and Evidentiary Objections

Supakam asked the court to take judicial notice—meaning to accept a fact without requiring formal proof—of Google Maps results showing the driving distance between Johnson’s residence and the restaurant. Supakam relied on those results to argue that Johnson’s three visits were unreasonable in light of his duty to mitigate damages. The court declined the request because the complaint did not allege that Johnson drove between his residence and the restaurant, making the results irrelevant to the motion.

The court sustained Johnson’s objection to statements that Supakam employees had not seen or heard from him because the statements were out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of what they asserted. The court overruled Johnson’s objection to unidentified copies of employee evidence because it could not determine what evidence the objection addressed. The court also overruled his objection to the daily checklist because he provided no basis for treating that document as inadmissible hearsay.

Rule 12(b)(1) Rulings

The court denied Supakam’s challenge to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Supakam submitted evidence that the restaurant had an accessible table, employee policies, daily checklists, and an agreement for periodic accessibility inspections. But the court concluded that deciding whether the alleged violations were unlikely to recur depended on factual questions about how the violations occurred, when the policies were adopted, and why the table was not outside on the dates Johnson visited. Those questions were closely connected to the merits of the claim, so the court held that they could not be resolved on Supakam’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

Supakam asked the court to treat its jurisdictional motion as a motion for summary judgment, which permits consideration of evidence to decide whether a genuine factual dispute requires a trial. The court declined to do so because discovery was stayed under General Order 56 and the case was at an early stage.

The court also denied Supakam’s Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to the Unruh Act claim. Whether the alleged access barriers resulted from a temporary or isolated employee mistake was intertwined with the merits of both claims. The court also noted that the submitted evidence did not clearly establish that a temporary mistake caused the alleged violations.

Rule 12(b)(6) Rulings

The court denied Supakam’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Johnson alleged that an accessible table was unavailable outside the restaurant on the dates of his visits. The court found that these allegations reasonably supported an inference that Supakam had not made reasonable changes to its policies, practices, or procedures. The court did not consider Supakam’s outside evidence when deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) issue.

The court also denied Supakam’s Rule 12(b)(6) challenge to the Unruh Act claim. The court held that whether Johnson acted reasonably and failed to mitigate damages involved factual questions that could not be resolved at the pleading stage. The court also could not consider Supakam’s evidence on that motion and had already declined to take judicial notice of the Google Maps results.

Supplemental Jurisdiction and Order

Because the court denied dismissal of Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim, it found that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Act claim was appropriate. The court declined to consider additional arguments Supakam raised for the first time in its reply brief.

The court’s final order denied Supakam’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and denied Supakam’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).