Johnson v. Suit Supply, Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:21-cv-08932
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Johnson v. Suit Supply, Judge Van Keulen dismissed the claims after an ADA barrier was fixed, and denied sanctions and site-inspection relief.
Scott Johnson’s ADA and Unruh Act claims were dismissed. Suit Supply’s sanctions request and Johnson’s request for a joint site inspection were both denied.
What happened
In Johnson v. Suit Supply (U.S.A.), Inc., Scott Johnson alleged that sales counters at Suit Supply’s store created access barriers during his August and September 2021 visits, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Suit Supply argued that the case was no longer a live dispute because it had permanently installed a new accessible counter. Johnson did not dispute the company’s evidence or provide evidence showing that the alleged counter barriers remained. He also sought a joint site inspection and argued that he should be allowed to investigate other possible barriers.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Suit Supply’s motion to dismiss both claims, declined to continue hearing the state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, denied Suit Supply’s request to pursue sanctions, and denied Johnson’s request for administrative relief concerning a site inspection.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Suit Supply, Inc. · No. 5:21-cv-08932
- Susan Van Keulen
- Apr. 1, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Suit Supply (U.S.A.), Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that sales counters at Suit Supply’s store created access barriers during visits in August and September 2021. The opinion states that the store was in San Jose, California, and that Suit Supply owned it.
Suit Supply previously argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because it had fixed the alleged sales-counter barrier. Johnson filed a first amended complaint instead of opposing that earlier motion. Suit Supply then moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and sought an order requiring Johnson and/or his attorneys to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Johnson separately sought an order requiring Suit Supply to provide dates for a joint site inspection.
Legal standard
The court treated Suit Supply’s jurisdictional challenge as a factual challenge supported by evidence outside the pleadings. Because the ADA claim and jurisdiction were intertwined, the court applied the summary-judgment standard: dismissal was proper if there was no genuine dispute about a material fact and Suit Supply was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Analysis
The court concluded that Suit Supply’s evidence established that the alleged sales-counter barriers had been removed. The evidence included a declaration from Alex Granados, the store’s manager, stating that a new accessible counter had been permanently installed after Johnson filed his original complaint, along with photographs of the counter and its measurements. Johnson did not dispute the declaration or submit contrary evidence. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim.
After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction— the authority to hear a related state-law claim—over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim. The court stated that continuing to hear that claim would not further the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim.
The court denied Suit Supply’s request for sanctions. Although it found the sanctions question close and noted that Johnson’s amended complaint did not resolve the central issue that the sales-counter barrier had already been remedied, it also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 allowed a plaintiff to file an amended complaint as a matter of course in response to a motion to dismiss. The court found that sanctions were not warranted under the circumstances.
Because the court granted Suit Supply’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint, it denied Johnson’s motion for administrative relief seeking dates for a joint site inspection.
Disposition
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that Suit Supply’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED; Suit Supply’s request for an order to show cause concerning sanctions was DENIED; and Johnson’s motion for administrative relief was DENIED.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.