Johnson v. Matusich

Background

Scott Johnson sued Richard G. Matusich and Union Ave Group, Inc., asserting a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The parties submitted a proposed consent decree for court approval. The decree stated that it fully and finally resolved Johnson’s claims for injunctive relief arising from the alleged conduct, that no corrective work was required under an attached accessibility expert report, and that the defendants would maintain the premises in compliance with accessibility laws. The parties had not reached agreement on damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, and expenses related to the Unruh Act claim.

Court’s analysis

At a hearing, the court asked whether the ADA claim was moot and whether it should keep the Unruh Act claim under supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. Johnson did not dispute that the identified barriers had been repaired. He argued that the ADA claim remained live because the consent decree required continuing compliance with accessibility laws. The defendants argued that this provision was only a promise to obey the law and did not require court supervision.

The court held that the ADA claim was moot. It explained that a claim may become moot when later events make it clear that the alleged conduct is not reasonably expected to recur and the effects of the alleged violation have been completely and permanently eliminated. The consent decree stated that no corrective work was needed, and Johnson did not identify any particular alleged violations likely to recur.

The court also addressed the Unruh Act claim, which the opinion states was based solely on the alleged ADA violation. Johnson argued that the court should retain supplemental jurisdiction, including because requiring him to seek relief in state court would deny him due process and because declining jurisdiction could discourage settlements in future ADA cases. The court found those arguments unpersuasive, noted that Johnson acknowledged state-court relief was available, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court rejected the parties’ consent decree because it contemplated retaining supplemental jurisdiction without sufficient justification. It dismissed the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the file. Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on March 25, 2022.