Johnson v. Akkaya

Background

Scott Johnson sued Cihan Akkaya, Serife Akkaya, and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion identifies Johnson as a “level C-5 quadriplegic” who uses a wheelchair and has significant manual-dexterity impairments.

Johnson visited John’s Creation, a nail salon in San Carlos, California, on March 17, 2021. He stated that he could not enter because the entrance had an unramped step and that the door’s traditional round knob required a tight grasp and wrist twisting that was difficult for him to perform. Johnson and his investigator observed the same conditions during a second visit on May 24, 2021.

The defendants, Cihan and Serife Akkaya, were identified as the owners of the real property where John’s Creation is located. The opinion states that, in 2021, they caused the round door handle to be replaced with a lever handle and caused a concrete ramp to be installed. An access specialist later inspected the salon and identified additional ADA violations, including excessive slopes, obstructed door maneuvering clearances, an uneven flooring transition, and insufficient space beneath manicure stations.

Johnson filed an amended complaint adding allegations about barriers identified during the inspection. He then moved for partial summary judgment on his Unruh Act claim.

Request for More Discovery

The defendants argued that Johnson’s motion was premature and asked for additional time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to depose him and investigate whether he had standing. Johnson responded that the defendants had known about the relevant issues, had had time to depose him before discovery closed, and had chosen not to do so.

The court denied the defendants’ request for an enlargement of the discovery deadline. It found that the defendants had stated during case management that they intended to take discovery, but had taken no discovery during the discovery period. They did not seek Johnson’s deposition until two months after fact discovery had closed, and the court found no sufficient explanation for that lack of diligence.

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury connected to the defendant’s conduct. The defendants argued that Johnson lacked standing because they had remedied the door and wheelchair-access barriers and because he had not tried to visit the salon again.

The court rejected that argument. It found that Johnson alleged he had been unable to access the salon in 2021, had been deterred from returning because of the barriers identified in the inspection, regularly traveled to the area to identify businesses violating access laws, and intended to return to assess the salon after being told the barriers had been removed. The court concluded that Johnson had standing.

ADA and Unruh Act Claims

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Johnson argued that the undisputed evidence established an ADA violation and therefore an Unruh Act violation. The defendants did not dispute the ADA violations or Johnson’s denial of full and equal access; they relied only on their standing argument.

The court explained that an ADA claim required Johnson to show that he was disabled, that the defendants owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation, and that he was denied access because of his disability. The court found that Johnson established his disability, that the defendants admitted owning the property, and that John’s Creation was a place of public accommodation. It also found that the defendants did not contest the access specialist’s findings concerning the existing barriers.

The court further found that the defendants did not contest that removing the barriers was “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense. Because Johnson established an ADA violation, the court concluded that the defendants also violated the Unruh Act. Under that law, an ADA violation constitutes an Unruh Act violation.

Statutory Damages and Disposition

The court found that Johnson had shown actual knowledge of the barriers, that the barriers denied him equal access or would have denied him equal access had he entered, and that the barriers deterred him from returning. The court therefore ruled that he was entitled to the minimum statutory award of $4,000 that he requested.

The court granted Johnson’s motion for partial summary judgment. It separately denied the defendants’ request for an enlargement of the discovery deadline.