Johnson v. Cala Stevens Creek/Monroe, LLC, 401 F.Supp.3d 904

Background

Plaintiff Scott Johnson, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair, sued the owners of the commercial property housing Sunny Valley Spa alleging inaccessible van parking in violation of the ADA and California's Unruh Act; he visited the Spa multiple times in 2015–2016.
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA and monetary damages under the Unruh Act for past discrimination and deterrence.
The Spa permanently closed in March 2018 and the tenant space remained vacant during litigation; the parties stipulated to the business closure.
Defendants contend they remedied the alleged parking deficiencies between Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 and move to dismiss the ADA claim as moot and argue the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim.
The dispositive factual violation found by the Court was an access aisle slope of 6.5% (exceeding ADAAG limits) during at least two of Plaintiff’s visits; Plaintiff also alleged missing signage but the Court did not treat that as an ADA violation.
Procedurally: cross-motions for summary judgment; court dismissed the ADA injunctive claim for lack of jurisdiction (mootness) but retained and granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on the Unruh Act claim, awarding $12,000 in statutory damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADA injunctive claim is moot	Johnson argued the ADA claim is not moot and closure may be temporary	Defendants argued the Spa closed permanently and/or barriers were already remedied, mooting injunctive relief	ADA claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (moot) because the Spa permanently closed; court did not reach remedy argument
Whether missing signage (wheelchair logo, $250 fine, tow-away) violated the ADA	Johnson argued signage requirements derive from California Building Code and thus show ADA violation	Defendants argued either compliance or that signage is not required under ADAAG	Court held signage claims do not establish an ADA violation because ADAAG, not CBC, controls; signage alone was not an ADA violation
Whether excessive slope of the access aisle violated ADA standards	Johnson showed (personal affidavit, investigator photos) a 6.5% slope into the access aisle during visits, violating ADAAG	Defendants produced declarations claiming earlier remediation but did not rebut photographic/affidavit evidence of slope during Plaintiff's visits	Court found no genuine dispute that the access aisle slope violated 1991 and 2010 ADAAG and thus constituted an ADA/Unruh violation
Whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claim after ADA claim dismissed	Johnson asked the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction and decide damages under Unruh	Defendants urged the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state claim	Court exercised discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction (factors favored retention) and granted summary judgment to Johnson on Unruh damages ($12,000)

Key Cases Cited

Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show real and immediate threat of repeated injury to obtain injunctive relief under ADA)
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing for injunctive ADA relief can be shown by deterrence or intent to return)
Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (damages are not recoverable under Title III of the ADA)
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements for Title III ADA claim in context of places of public accommodation)
Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 816 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (lack of accessible parking constitutes an architectural barrier under ADA)
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party invoking jurisdiction bears burden to establish its existence)
Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction: judicial economy, convenience, fairness, comity)