Johnson v. Kuma Kuma LLC

Background

Scott Johnson sued Kuma Kuma LLC, alleging that Hanabusa Café, which Kuma Kuma LLC owned, lacked wheelchair-accessible inside and outside dining surfaces. Johnson alleged that he encountered insufficient knee or toe clearance during a visit or visits in October and December 2021. The opinion notes an inconsistency: the complaint referred to visits on multiple dates, while Johnson’s declaration indicated that his claims arose from one personal visit.

Johnson asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he was deterred from returning to the café but intended to return after the alleged barriers were removed. After the defendant failed to answer, Johnson sought default judgment, requesting $4,000 in Unruh Act damages, $4,767 in attorney fees and costs, and an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Unruh Act Claim

Before deciding default judgment, the court examined its subject-matter jurisdiction. It concluded that exceptional circumstances justified declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law Unruh Act claim. The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions concerning frequent federal filings of Unruh Act claims alongside Americans with Disabilities Act claims and the resulting concerns about allowing plaintiffs to avoid California’s heightened requirements for frequent litigants.

The court rejected Johnson’s argument that the district’s procedures for Americans with Disabilities Act access cases addressed those concerns. It also concluded that fairness, judicial economy, and convenience did not outweigh the federalism concerns because Johnson could pursue the same remedies in state court and the federal case had not reached the merits. The court therefore declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the Unruh Act claim on its own initiative. The opinion does not state that this dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Article III Standing and Default Judgment

Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. For an Americans with Disabilities Act claim seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must also show that he was deterred from returning to the facility or genuinely intends to return and is likely to encounter the injury again.

The court found that Johnson had not clearly established that he visited Hanabusa Café or had a genuine intent to return. It found his declarations and his counsel’s declaration insufficiently specific, and it concluded that an investigator’s visit did not establish Johnson’s personal visit, encounter with the alleged barriers, or intent to return. The court therefore ordered an in-person evidentiary hearing to determine whether Johnson had standing to maintain the remaining Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

The court denied Johnson’s motion for default judgment, without prejudice to a future motion on the Americans with Disabilities Act claim if Johnson establishes standing at the evidentiary hearing. The court vacated the previously scheduled hearing and stated that it would schedule the evidentiary hearing. It did not decide whether Kuma Kuma LLC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.