Court: District Court, E.D. California; January 21, 2019; Federal District Court
Scott Johnson, a quadriplegic, filed a lawsuit against Jeri Oishi, in both her personal capacity and as Trustee of the Jeri and Noboru Oishi Trust, along with Aloha Flowers, Inc., seeking injunctive relief for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson claims he was denied access to Enchanted Florist in Lake Tahoe, California, due to inadequate handicap parking and a non-compliant wheelchair ramp. He visited the store multiple times in late 2015 and reported barriers, including a faded handicap parking sign and a ramp exceeding the ADA's slope limit.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting two main arguments: first, that the issue of the handicap parking space is moot because it has been repainted and will be maintained annually; second, that the South Lake Tahoe Building Division concluded that bringing the ramp into full ADA compliance would cause undue hardship and determined it provided "equivalent means of access," thus exempting it from strict compliance. As a result, Defendants contend that both claims are moot, and they request dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as a refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
In response, Johnson argues that the remedial actions taken by Defendants do not guarantee that violations will not recur and questions the Division's authority to grant exemptions under the ADA. The document highlights that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and the burden lies on the party asserting jurisdiction. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by either party at any stage of litigation.
Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be categorized as facial attacks or factual attacks. A facial attack challenges the sufficiency of allegations within the complaint without introducing evidence, requiring the court to accept the complaint's factual allegations as true to determine if they establish subject matter jurisdiction. A motion is granted only if the complaint fails to allege a necessary element of jurisdiction. Conversely, a factual attack does not presume the truth of the plaintiff's allegations; the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove the existence of subject matter jurisdiction by presenting evidence. If jurisdictional facts are contested, the plaintiff cannot simply assert that factual issues exist but must substantiate claims with evidence. A district court may review evidence, including affidavits, to ascertain jurisdiction. If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden and the court finds a lack of jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed. However, if jurisdictional and substantive issues are so intertwined that resolving jurisdiction depends on factual questions related to the merits, the court will assume the truth of the allegations unless contradicted by undisputed facts. Dismissal occurs only when it is clear that the plaintiff cannot present any facts supporting the claim for relief. If subject matter jurisdiction is confirmed, the court may proceed with motions addressing the merits, such as a summary judgment motion or a trial.
Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, preventing federal courts from hearing moot cases, as established in Foster v. Carson. A case is deemed moot when issues are no longer live or parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, as defined in Powell v. McCormack. In ADA claims, a defendant's voluntary cessation of violations can moot a plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, contingent on whether subsequent changes have eliminated the possibility of meaningful relief. The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that the wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur, as emphasized in Johnson v. Tackett. The court evaluates factors such as the defendant's financial investments in compliance and their history of adherence to the law.
In this case, Defendants argue for dismissal, asserting they have remedied the ADA violations underlying the Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff counters that Defendants have not sufficiently proven compliance or that violations will not recur, specifically questioning the permanence of the parking space signage and the access ramp's slope. The Court acknowledges that a newly painted parking space could fade, but Defendants have entered into a contract for annual repainting, which supports their claim that violations are unlikely to recur. Furthermore, Defendants have shown a commitment to ADA compliance, having renovated the property significantly since acquiring it in 2002 and promptly addressing the Plaintiff's complaints.
In Houston v. 7-Eleven, Inc., the court ruled that the defendant's significant investment in renovating their parking lot to meet ADA standards, along with their established compliance policies, made it unreasonable to anticipate future violations. The same reasoning applies in the current case, where the defendant has an annual contractor agreement for parking lot maintenance, indicating a commitment to ADA compliance. The court concludes that the plaintiff's claim regarding the handicap parking space is moot.
Regarding the access ramp, despite exceeding the ADA's maximum slope, the court found it no longer constitutes a barrier to access. The Division determined that reconstructing the ramp would pose significant hardship and concluded that the existing ramp offers equivalent access. The plaintiff's argument against the Division's authority was rejected, as the engineer involved was a Certified Access Specialist with expertise in accessibility standards. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim about the access ramp is also deemed moot.
The court granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, denying the opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint as any amendments would be futile. With the dismissal of the ADA claims, the court chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to the conclusion of the case. The Clerk of Court was instructed to close the file. The court decided against oral argument, handling the matter based on written briefs. The plaintiff's additional argument regarding the dimensions of the parking space was not considered, as his complaints were limited to the absence of clear lines.
