Johnson v. Cappello
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-07590
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Johnson v. Cappello, Magistrate Judge Tse dismissed the disability claim as moot and dismissed the state-law claim after declining supplemental jurisdiction.
Scott Johnson’s ADA and California Unruh Act claims were dismissed. The defendants, including Romolo Cappello and other restaurant owners, obtained dismissal of the claims addressed in the order.
What happened
In Johnson v. Cappello, Scott Johnson sued the owners of Fernando’s Mexican Restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act. He alleged that he encountered accessibility barriers at the restaurant.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the disability claim because the barriers had been removed and to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Johnson agreed that the disability claim was moot because the restaurant had fully corrected the barriers, and he did not oppose dismissal of the state-law claim.
The court dismissed the disability claim as moot and dismissed the Unruh Act claim because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. United States Magistrate Judge Alex Tse issued the order on September 3, 2022.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Cappello · No. 3:21-cv-07590
- Alex Tse
- Sept. 3, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson sued Romolo Cappello and other defendants identified as the owners of Fernando’s Mexican Restaurant. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act, alleging that he encountered accessibility barriers when he visited the restaurant.
Motion and Positions
The defendants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that Johnson’s ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed. They also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, meaning the court would not decide the related state-law claim in the same case.
Johnson did not file an opposition. Instead, he filed a notice agreeing that his ADA claim was moot because the restaurant had fully remedied all barriers listed in his complaint. He did not respond to or oppose the defendants’ arguments concerning the Unruh Act claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed Johnson’s ADA claim as moot because he agreed that the alleged violations had been remedied. The court also dismissed his Unruh Act claim because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. The order does not state whether either dismissal was with or without prejudice.
United States Magistrate Judge Alex Tse issued the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.