Johnson v. Sierra Gate LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Sierra Gate LLC and McCarthy LG Boulevard, LLC, asserting claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court issued an order requiring the parties to address whether Johnson had Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, ongoing injury—to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. The court also questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over the Unruh Act claim.

Johnson responded with a brief and two declarations. He asked the court to retain jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and described his intent to return to the property after the alleged barriers were remedied and the case concluded.

Court’s Findings

The court found that Johnson and his counsel had filed incomplete and misleading responses. It described the submissions as boilerplate and virtually identical to responses filed in many other cases. The court said the submissions omitted important facts and raised serious questions about Johnson’s and his attorneys’ credibility.

Sierra Gate told the court that it had contacted Johnson’s attorneys five times before they filed their responses and informed them that the barriers had been removed. The court stated that the Potter Handy firm did not meaningfully respond to those communications. After Sierra Gate filed its response, Johnson’s firm filed a notice conceding that the ADA injunctive claim was moot. The court said it appeared that filing the boilerplate responses instead of informing the court about the changed circumstances forced Sierra Gate to incur unnecessary attorneys’ fees.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria dismissed the ADA claim against both defendants as moot because the alleged barriers had been corrected and no immediate threat of injury remained. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claims against McCarthy LG Boulevard, LLC, citing exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). The order did not award attorneys’ fees or state that the Unruh Act claims were dismissed.