Johnson v. Do Raku, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he visited i-Tea Do Raku three times in August 2021 but was deterred because the restaurant lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance under its indoor and outdoor dining surfaces for wheelchair users. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that he planned to return to the restaurant.

After receiving notice of the lawsuit, Do Raku hired a certified access specialist, who inspected the premises and identified the alleged accessibility barriers. Do Raku said it promptly removed all barriers, notified Johnson, provided photographs, and served an offer of judgment. A later inspection confirmed that the surfaces complied with accessibility standards. Johnson did not request a site inspection and acknowledged that the tables identified in the access specialist’s report appeared to meet those standards.

Court’s Analysis

Do Raku brought a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Because the jurisdictional issue was intertwined with the merits, the court applied the summary-judgment standard. Do Raku therefore had to affirmatively show that no genuine dispute existed about whether the alleged barriers remained.

For injunctive relief, standing requires a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. The court found that Do Raku had presented ample evidence that the barriers had been removed and that Johnson had not disputed that evidence. The court rejected as speculation Johnson’s argument that the barriers might recur, reasoning that there was no stated reason for Do Raku to return to using noncompliant tables after investing in compliant ones. The court concluded that Johnson faced no real and immediate threat of repeated injury.

The court therefore dismissed Johnson’s sole federal claim for lack of jurisdiction. The only remaining claim was under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim was discretionary, and courts in the district had declined to exercise it after dismissing a parallel Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.

Disposition

The court GRANTS Do Raku’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion states that the federal claim was dismissed and that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim; it does not state an additional with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation.