Johnson v. Woldeselassie

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he visited the defendants’ Yawh Mini Market in October and November 2021 intending to use its goods or services. Johnson is a C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that the store lacked wheelchair-accessible paths of travel and that some aisles narrowed to less than 36 inches. He further alleged that the barriers could be removed without much difficulty or expense and that he would return once the store was represented to him as accessible.

Johnson asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which governs access to privately operated public accommodations, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction requiring compliance with the ADA and the Unruh Act, nominal damages under the ADA, statutory damages under the Unruh Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Johnson lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Johnson had not adequately pleaded an ADA claim. They submitted declarations stating that they had not seen Johnson at the store, a declaration from a certified access specialist about store inspections and aisle widths, and other materials that they said supported their challenges to Johnson’s standing and allegations.

Johnson opposed the motion and submitted a declaration stating that he visited the store on October 28 and November 23, 2021, entered it on October 28, and observed that the aisles were too narrow for his wheelchair.

Standing and Jurisdiction

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision can remedy the injury. The court found that it was improper to resolve disputed facts about the store’s accessibility on the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge because those facts were closely tied to the merits of Johnson’s ADA claim. Determining whether Johnson suffered an injury would require deciding whether the store complied with ADA accessibility requirements. The court therefore rejected the defendants’ challenge to Johnson’s standing to assert the ADA claim.

For an ADA plaintiff seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of being injured again. The court held that Johnson’s allegations that he intended to return to the store but was deterred by its alleged noncompliance were sufficient at the pleading stage. The court declined to require additional factors concerning proximity, past patronage, definiteness of return plans, and frequency of nearby travel. It also found that the defendants’ evidence about the distance from Johnson’s residence, his past litigation, and alleged tax violations did not resolve whether he intended to return to this store.

Adequacy of the ADA Claim

The defendants argued that Johnson’s ADA allegations were too conclusory and did not explain how the alleged barriers personally impeded his path of travel. The court disagreed. It found that Johnson’s allegation that paths of travel inside the store narrowed to less than 36 inches in some places provided enough detail to identify the alleged problem and give the defendants fair notice. The court held that Johnson did not need to identify the specific aisle at this stage.

Because the court declined to dismiss the ADA claim, it found that supplemental jurisdiction—federal authority to hear a related state-law claim—was appropriate for Johnson’s Unruh Act claim.

Other Rulings and Disposition

The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which can allow discovery before deciding a summary-judgment motion, did not apply because the defendants had filed a motion to dismiss rather than a summary-judgment motion. The court also found additional discovery unnecessary to resolve the jurisdictional challenge.

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of certain materials, including a State Bar record, a Google Maps printout, and the existence of specified court filings and a case list. It did not take judicial notice of the truth of disputed statements in those court filings.

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It ordered the defendants to file an answer within 21 days of the order.