Johnson v. LMT Foods, Inc.

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he has physical disabilities, uses a wheelchair, and visited a Togo’s owned by LMT Foods in July 2020 and April 2021. He alleged that the location lacked outdoor dining surfaces with enough knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson alleged that he planned to return but was deterred by the barriers. LMT Foods moved to dismiss, arguing that the ADA claim was moot and asking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

ADA Claim

The court treated the mootness issue as a question of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). A claim is moot when later events mean that the court can no longer provide effective relief. Because the ADA claim sought injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, the court focused on whether the alleged access problem was likely to happen again.

LMT Foods presented evidence that the Togo’s location had an ADA-compliant table. It also hired a certified access specialist to inspect the site, adopted an ADA policy and procedure manual, and entered into a three-year contract for recurring compliance inspections. The court found this evidence uncontroverted and concluded that LMT Foods had voluntarily remedied the alleged barriers.

The court recognized that a defendant usually faces a heavy burden when claiming that voluntary compliance has made a case moot. It nevertheless found that LMT Foods met that burden because the company had taken affirmative steps to maintain compliance, the opinion identified no history of ADA violations, and Johnson had not presented evidence of an intent to violate the ADA in the future. The court held that the alleged wrongful conduct was not reasonably likely to recur and that the ADA claim was moot.

The court therefore granted LMT Foods’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(h)(3).

Unruh Act Claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear a related state-law claim that is part of the same dispute as a federal claim. The court found exceptional circumstances supporting dismissal of the state claim, including that the case was at an early stage and that concerns about judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts did not favor keeping the claim in federal court.

Disposition

The court granted LMT Foods’ motion to dismiss. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Unruh Act claim and dismissed that state-law claim without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the file.