Johnson v. Right Crons Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that Right Crons Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that he is a level C-5 quadriplegic, uses a wheelchair, and visited the Luminance Aesthetics business in April 2019, June 2019, and July 2020. He alleged that the property lacked enough accessible parking spaces; that the reserved parking stall and access aisle were too steep; and that the common-area restroom and entrance door lacked required accessible features.

Johnson alleged that these barriers affected his disability and deterred him from returning, although he intended to return. Right Crons moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Johnson lacked Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can likely remedy.

ADA Claim

The court denied Right Crons’s motion to dismiss. Right Crons presented a declaration from Luminance Aesthetics’ owner stating that the business operated by appointment, required health questionnaires and credit-card information, and had no record of Johnson’s appointments or contact. Right Crons argued that Johnson therefore had not visited the facility and suffered no injury.

The court held that it could not resolve that factual dispute on the current record because doing so would overlap with the merits of Johnson’s ADA claim. The court also rejected the facial challenge to standing based on Johnson’s alleged intent to return. Although Johnson did not allege specific return plans and lived far from Luminance Aesthetics, he alleged that he frequently visited the area, had visited San Jose more than 70 times since February 2021, was there multiple times a week, regularly patronized a coffee shop five miles from Luminance Aesthetics, and had visited Luminance Aesthetics three times. Taking those allegations as true at this stage, the court found that he had pleaded an injury-in-fact.

The court recognized that questions remained about whether Johnson personally visited the business and whether he had a legitimate intent to return. It authorized possible jurisdictional discovery on those questions. Right Crons was ordered to notify the court within 30 days whether it wanted a three-month period of jurisdictional discovery or preferred to proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing. Johnson would also be permitted discovery concerning whether he visited Luminance Aesthetics.

Unruh Act Claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims that arise from the same underlying facts as a federal claim. The court found exceptional circumstances supporting its decision to decline that authority, citing the early stage of the case and its conclusion that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts did not favor keeping the claim in federal court.

The court dismissed Johnson’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. Because the Unruh Act claim was dismissed, the court ordered Johnson to file within ten days either a motion or stipulation dismissing the ADA claim or a status report stating that he wanted to continue the ADA claim in federal court.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila denied Right Crons Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Johnson’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court and required Johnson to choose whether to dismiss or continue his ADA claim in federal court.