Johnson v. The Christeni Group LLC
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-01620
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. The Christeni Group LLC, Judge Donato dismissed the moot ADA claim and dismissed Johnson’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice.
Scott Johnson’s ADA and Unruh Act claims against The Christeni Group LLC were dismissed; the Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice, and the court did not decide the merits of the ADA claim.
What happened
Scott Johnson, who uses a wheelchair, sued The Christeni Group LLC over inaccessible dining surfaces at its restaurant, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Christeni asked the court to dismiss the federal claim, saying it had corrected the dining-surface problem after the lawsuit was filed. Johnson agreed that his request for an order requiring accessibility improvements was now moot, but asked the court to keep the state-law claim.
The court dismissed the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to hear the remaining Unruh Act claim, which it dismissed without prejudice. Judge Donato explained that the court had not decided the ADA claim’s merits.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. The Christeni Group LLC · No. 3:21-cv-01620
- James Donato
- Sept. 30, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson alleged that The Christeni Group LLC, which owns and operates Willard Hicks Campbell in Campbell, California, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that the restaurant lacked sufficient knee and toe clearance under its dining surfaces for wheelchair users. The opinion states that Johnson is a quadriplegic and requires a wheelchair for mobility.
Motion and Positions
Christeni asked for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Christeni argued that it had brought the dining surfaces into compliance with the ADA after being served with the complaint. A certified access specialist provided a declaration stating that the dining surfaces complied with the ADA.
Johnson acknowledged that Christeni had fixed the problem and did not dispute that his ADA claim was moot. He nevertheless asked the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear a related state-law claim after the federal claim is removed—over his Unruh Act claim.
Ruling
The court agreed that Johnson’s ADA claim was moot because later events showed that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be expected to recur. It dismissed that claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide the merits of the ADA claim.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which permits a federal court to decline jurisdiction when it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction. The court concluded that the usual considerations, including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, favored declining jurisdiction. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice. Judge James Donato ordered that this was so on September 30, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.