Johnson v. Rosvin, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. He alleged that Rosvin, Inc. failed to provide wheelchair-accessible outdoor dining surfaces at Divino Ristorante in Belmont, California. Johnson alleged that he visited the restaurant in March, June, and July 2021 and was deterred from returning because of known and possibly additional access barriers. He said he would return to use the restaurant’s goods or services and to check compliance after the barriers were represented to him as removed.

Rosvin moved for an order requiring Johnson and his lawyer to establish that Johnson had standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to the alleged injury for a federal court to hear the case. Because Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides injunctive relief as its remedy, Johnson needed to show both an injury and a sufficient likelihood that he would experience the problem again. The court stated that he had to show that he intended, or had intended, to return to the restaurant.

Standing allegations and evidence

Taking the complaint’s allegations in Johnson’s favor, the court found that he had adequately alleged an intent to return. The court then considered Rosvin’s factual challenge to jurisdiction. A factual challenge disputes whether the facts supporting federal jurisdiction are true, rather than merely arguing that the complaint is legally insufficient.

Rosvin relied on a declaration from owner Juan Carlos Vargas stating that Johnson had never visited the restaurant and that his alleged intent to return was therefore suspect. The court found the declaration improper on several grounds: it was not signed under penalty of perjury, included factually incorrect statements, and contained hearsay about whether restaurant servers remembered Johnson.

Johnson submitted a sworn declaration stating that he intended to return at least once after learning that all barriers had been removed and after the case ended, and that he was deterred from returning until then. He also stated that he sometimes traveled to the Bay Area as an Americans with Disabilities Act advocate and tester. The court found that these statements, although broad, directly supported his intent to return. Rosvin had not filed a reply or presented evidence rebutting Johnson’s declaration.

Discovery and disposition

The court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing at that stage. It recognized that the parties disputed facts relevant to jurisdiction and that discovery was then stayed under General Order 56. The court therefore allowed both parties to conduct limited discovery about those jurisdictional facts. The court stated that Rosvin could renew its standing challenge if discovery produced direct evidence undermining Johnson’s sworn statements.

The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Rosvin’s motion to order Johnson and his lawyer to establish standing. It ORDERED the parties to meet and confer about a plan for limited jurisdictional discovery, including Johnson’s deposition. The limited discovery period could not exceed 60 days.