Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00207/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00207-0/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.

L. WANG FAMILY PARTNERS, LP, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-00207-VKD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR 

CONSENT DECREE; GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO FOREGO 

JOINT SITE INSPECTION

Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 24

On June 4, 2019, the parties filed a proposed consent decree resolving plaintiff Scott

Johnson’s claims with respect to injunctive relief. Dkt. No. 23. The Court has reviewed the 

proposed consent decree and its attached documents. Several of the terms in Exhibit A to the 

proposed consent decree are ambiguous and would be difficult to enforce. For example, Exhibit A 

defines “Fully Complaint” [sic] as “indicat[ing] that the feature, fixture, space or improvement in 

question shall be designed and/or constructed and/or installed to meet all applicable requirement 

[sic] of: (i) ADAS and (ii) the currently enforceable and relevant provisions of the CBC,” but that 

term is not actually used in the consent decree. Dkt. No. 23-1 at 1. Instead, Exhibit A states that 

the restroom door hardware must be “compliant,” the restroom sink must have “proper knee 

clearance,” and the toilet seat cover dispenser must be mounted “within the proper height/reach 

range.” Id. at 2. In short, the consent decree does not specify what changes must be made or what 

it means for a particular architectural element to be “compliant” or “proper,” and requires nothing 

to be “Fully Compliant.” 

For these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice the parties’ request for an order 

entering the proposed consent decree. The parties may re-submit a revised consent decree for the 

Case 5:19-cv-00207-VKD Document 25 Filed 06/04/19 Page 1 of 2
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

Court’s consideration.

The deadline for conducting the joint site inspection in this case was May 17, 2019. Dkt. 

No. 22. On June 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulated request to forego the joint site inspection

and to extend the deadline to file a notice for need of mediation. Dkt. No. 24.

In view of the parties’ representations about the status of this dispute, the Court grants the 

parties’ belated request to forego the joint site inspection. However, the parties do not explain

why they require an additional 42-day extension of the deadline to file a notice of need for 

mediation, and on that basis, the Court denies that request. Mr. Johnson shall file a notice of need 

for mediation by July 5, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00207-VKD Document 25 Filed 06/04/19 Page 2 of 2