Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06474/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06474-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

IN SUK JUN et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06474-BLF 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS

YOUN LEE AND JEONG AE LEE’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re: ECF 16]

In this action, Plaintiff Scott Johnson asserts claims under Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the California Unruh Civil Rights 

Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. See generally Compl., ECF 1. Mr. Johnson seeks 

injunctive relief along with statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Id. In response, Jung 

Youn Lee and Jeong Ae Lee (together, “Lee Defendants”)1have filed this motion to dismiss. Mot. 

to Dismiss, ECF 16. Mr. Johnson opposes this motion. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 

(“Opp’n.”), ECF 20. This matter was previously deemed suitable for determination without oral 

argument. See ECF 27. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Lee Defendants’

motion to dismiss. 

According to his Complaint, Mr. Johnson is a level C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk and 

has significant manual dexterity impairments. Compl. ¶ 1. Mr. Johnson uses a wheelchair for 

mobility and has a specially equipped van. Id. Lee Defendants are proprietors of Eastridge Liquors 

 

1 The Complaint includes claims against two additional defendants: In Suk Jun and Kyu Jin Jun 

(together, “Jun Defendants”). Default has been entered against Jun Defendants. See ECF 23, 24. 

Jun Defendants have not signed on to the motion to dismiss currently before the Court. See 

generally, ECF 16.

Case 5:19-cv-06474-BLF Document 29 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(the “Store”), located at 1855 Tully Road, San Jose, California. Mot. to Dismiss at 2. 

Mr. Johnson alleges that a barrier at the Store prevented him from enjoying full and equal 

access to the facility. Compl. ¶ 15. Specifically, Mr. Johnson alleges that he visited the Store on 

several occasions, including twice in April 2019 and once in May 2019. Id. ¶ 14. During each of 

those visits, Mr. Johnson claims that Lee Defendants failed to provide accessible parking. Id. ¶ 13. 

According to Mr. Johnson, Lee Defendants’ failure to provide accessible facilities created 

“difficulty and discomfort” for him. Id. ¶ 16. Mr. Johnson claims that he will return to the Store

once it is represented to him that the Store and its facilities are accessible. Id. ¶ 19. 

In their motion to dismiss, Lee Defendants contend that their landlord built a new parking 

lot in October 2018 in compliance with the ADA, the 1992 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (the 

“ADAAG”), and the California Building Code in force at the time of the construction. Mot. to 

Dismiss at 2. Lee Defendants provide the City of San Jose’s approved plan number (17-002139) 

and inspection card number (17044235). Id. Lee Defendants claim that there have been no 

alterations, repairs, or improvements to the parking lot since the completion of construction. Id. 

Lee Defendants argue that since the parking lot has been in compliance with the ADA and the 

ADAAG when Plaintiff visited in April and May 2019, that “Plaintiff’s allegations are absolutely 

false.” Id. In support of their position, Lee Defendants provide several photographs attached to 

their motion to dismiss. See generally Mot. to Dismiss.

Mr. Johnson opposes Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that “it is solely 

based on extrinsic evidence and jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of Plaintiff’s 

claims.” Opp’n at 1. Mr. Johnson further argues that Lee Defendants have not provided sufficient 

evidence (e.g., data on the slope and cross-slope of the parking space and access aisle) to support 

their claim that the Store’s parking lot complies with the ADA requirements. Opp’n at 3. The Court 

agrees with Plaintiff that Lee Defendants’ motion is, in effect, a premature motion for summary 

judgment. Opp’n at 2. Lee Defendants’ motion merely challenges the factual allegations in the 

Complaint, which is improper at this stage. See Mot. to Dismiss. Moreover, Mr. Johnson challenges 

the sufficiency of the evidence provided. See Opp’n. “When reviewing motions to dismiss, we 

must accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in 

Case 5:19-cv-06474-BLF Document 29 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

favor of the nonmoving party.” Bernhardt v. Cty. Of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002)

(citations omitted). Thus, Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

Additionally, the Court notes that any doubt either party has about the ADA compliance of 

the parking lot can be resolved by the procedure provided in General Order 56 – specifically, the 

joint site inspection, which is yet to take place in this case. 

I. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Lee Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at ECF 

16.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: February 12, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-06474-BLF Document 29 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 3