Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00061/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00061-2/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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN CARLOS INN,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00061-SK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Regarding Docket No. 22

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss filed by 

Defendant San Carlos Inn, L.P. (“Defendant”). The Court determines that this matter is 

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and is deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing set for January 27, 2020 is VACATED. Having carefully considered the 

parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in the case, the Court hereby GRANTS

Defendant’s motion for the reasons set forth below.

Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s request 

for injunctive relief is moot because all alleged barriers have either been remedied or do not exist, 

and (2) Plaintiff lacks standing. In the Order Requiring Further Briefing and Continuing Hearing, 

the Court noted that in Plaintiff’s late-filed opposition to the motion for judgment on the 

Pleadings, Plaintiff failed to address the factual issues raised by Defendant’s motion. (Dkt. 29.) 

The Court provided Plaintiff with another opportunity to oppose Defendant’s motion on the 

merits, but Plaintiff did not file any supplemental opposition by the deadline of December 12, 

2019. Therefore, the Court will address the merits of Defendant’s motion. 

Because injunctive relief is the only available remedy under Title III, a plaintiff claiming 

discrimination under Title III “must not only demonstrate the familiar requirements for standing –

injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability – but also a sufficient likelihood that he [or she] will be 

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 33 Filed 01/22/20 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

wronged again in a similar way.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 

862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “Where . . . a private plaintiff 

brings an ADA claim seeking to enjoin a defendant to remove an architectural barrier, removal of 

the barrier before final judgment moots the ADA claim based on that barrier.” Hernandez v. 

Polanco Enterprises, Inc., 19 F. Supp. 3d 918, 926 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Oliver v. Ralphs 

Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because a private plaintiff can sue only for 

injunctive relief (i.e., for removal of the barrier) under the ADA, . . . a defendant’s voluntary 

removal of alleged barriers prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff’s ADA claim.”) 

(internal citation omitted)).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because all alleged 

barriers have either been remedied or do not exist. Plaintiff alleges that the motel failed to offer 

sufficient accessible rooms across the various classes of sleeping accommodations. (Dkt. No. 1 

(Compl.), ¶ 17. However, Defendant submits evidence to demonstrate that the motel does have 

accessible rooms in compliance with the ADA. (Dkt. No. 22-2 (Declaration of Suresh Gandhi), ¶¶ 

2-4.) Next, Plaintiff also alleges that the website for the motel does not allow customers to make 

reservations online for accessible rooms (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 19), but Defendant submits evidence 

demonstrating that customers can make reservations online for accessible rooms. (Dkt. No. 22-2, 

¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant fails to provide a van accessible parking space

and that access aisle was not level with the parking spaces because there is a curb running into the 

access aisle, causing slopes greater than 2.1%. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 23, 26-27.) Larry Wood, a statelicensed Certified Access Specialist, conducted a survey of the motel property and states that, 

upon his inspection, he observed the required number of van-accessible parking spaces and that 

the parking stalls and access aisle are level with each other and that there are no slopes greater 

than 2.1%. (Dkt. No. 22-3 (Declaration of Larry Wood), ¶¶ 2- 5.) Therefore, Mr. Wood found 

that all of the architectural barriers Plaintiff identified in his Complaint have been corrected and 

are fully compliant. (Id., ¶ 6.) 

Despite having notice of Defendant’s contentions and a second opportunity to respond, 

Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to show that any barriers currently exist. Accordingly, the 

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 33 Filed 01/22/20 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

Court finds that Plaintiff’s ADA claim is MOOT and GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment 

on the pleadings on this claim. Moreover, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over Plaintiff’s state-law claim and dismisses this state-law claim. This 

Order is without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling his state-law claim in state court. The Court will 

issue a separate judgment. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 33 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3