Johnson v. Lo

Background

The court considered plaintiff Scott Johnson’s February 25, 2022, application for default judgment. The opinion says defendants Ka Wai Yip, Tony Lam Nguyen, and Hankee Ii Restaurant, Inc. had not filed a response. Johnson’s complaint describes him as a California resident with physical disabilities who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleges that he visited Kim Anh Spa, Han Kee Restaurant, and Pinoy Lechon BBQ & Grill on four occasions and encountered barriers including a lack of wheelchair-accessible parking and bathrooms.

Johnson asserted two causes of action: violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. His application sought injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

The Court’s Analysis

The court stated that Johnson supplied enough information to address his damages, attorney’s fees, and costs requests, but not enough information to address injunctive relief. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires an injunction to state its terms specifically and describe in reasonable detail the acts that are restrained or required.

The court found that Johnson described the barriers in his application but did not provide the specific language he wanted included in an injunction, either in the application or in the proposed order. The court also stated that, to the extent Johnson implicitly sought an order requiring compliance with the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, he had not shown that those standards applied to the claims. The opinion explains that the applicable accessibility requirements depend in part on when the relevant structure was constructed or altered. It states that Johnson neither alleged nor provided evidence establishing when the businesses’ structures were constructed or altered, including whether the 1991 or 2010 standards applied.

Order and Effect

The court afforded Johnson leave to file, by April 22, 2022, a supplemental brief no longer than five pages. The brief must address each alleged barrier for which Johnson sought injunctive relief, provide the specific language he proposed for an injunction, and include any further argument supporting his entitlement to that relief.

Judge Maxine M. Chesney continued the hearing on the application for default judgment from April 8, 2022, to May 13, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. The order did not grant or deny the application for default judgment and did not decide the underlying claims.