Johnson v. Jacob et al
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 04/09/15 DENYING 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and DENYING Request for Sanctions. (Benson, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SCOTT JOHNSON,
10
13
14
15
2:14-cv-02323-JAM-EFB
Plaintiff,
11
12
No.
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS
KELLIE ANNE JACOBS, in her
individual and representative
capacity as Trustee for The
Kellie Anne Revocable Trust;
VALLEY BREWING COMPANY, INC.,
a California Corporation, and
Does 1-10,
16
Defendants.
17
Defendants Kellie Anne Jacobs (“Jacobs”), in her individual
18
19
and representative capacity as Trustee of the Kellie Anne
20
Revocable Trust, and Valley Brewing Company, Inc. (“Valley
21
Brewing”) (collectively “Defendants”) contend the Court lacks
22
subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiff Scott
23
Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint (Doc. #1) and have moved to
24
dismiss (Doc. #8) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25
12(b)(1) (“Rule 12(b)(1)”). 1
In his opposition (Doc. #9),
26
27
28
1
This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was scheduled
for March 25, 2015.
1
1
Plaintiff argues this attack on the merits of his claims is
2
premature and is better suited as a motion for summary judgment.
3
The Court agrees.
4
5
6
I.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Valley Brewing Company is a business establishment and place
7
of public accommodation owned and operated by Defendants.
8
Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities.
9
As a C-5 quadriplegic, he uses a wheelchair for mobility.
10
Plaintiff alleges there are significant accessibility issues
11
at Valley Brewing Company involving features of the bar/counter,
12
tables and bathroom.
13
on two occasions and encountered these barriers.
14
Plaintiff experienced difficulty and discomfort and has been
15
deterred from visiting on subsequent occasions.
16
states four causes of action arising out of these encounters:
17
(1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
18
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; (2) violation of the Unruh
19
Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code §§ 51-53; (3) violation
20
of the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil Code
21
§§ 54-54.8; and (4) negligence.
Plaintiff alleges he ate at Valley Brewing
As a result,
The complaint
22
23
II.
OPINION
24
A.
Legal Standard
25
Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when a district
26
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.
27
defendant brings a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff has the
28
burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
2
See
When a
1
Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. E.P.A., 509 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.1 (9th
2
Cir. 2007) (“Once challenged, the party asserting subject matter
3
jurisdiction has the burden of proving its existence.”).
4
are two permissible jurisdictional attacks under Rule 12(b)(1): a
5
facial attack, where the court’s inquiry is limited to the
6
allegations in the complaint; or a factual attack, which permits
7
the court to look beyond the complaint at affidavits or other
8
evidence.
9
1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2003).
10
There
Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036,
If the moving party asserts a facial challenge, the court
11
must assume that the factual allegations asserted in the
12
complaint are true and must construe those allegations in the
13
light most favorable to the plaintiff.
14
Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (citing
15
One 1997 Mercedes E420, 175 F.3d 1129, 1130-31 & n.1 (9th Cir.
16
1999) and Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136,
17
1139 (9th Cir. 2003)).
18
attack, the court “is free to hear evidence regarding
19
jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving
20
factual disputes where necessary.”
21
Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004)).
22
Li v. Chertoff, 482 F.
United States v.
If the moving party asserts a factual
Id. (citing Safe Air for
In resolving a factual attack, district courts “may review
23
evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to
24
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
25
Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (citing Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2).
26
Courts consequently need not presume the truthfulness of
27
plaintiff’s allegations.
28
1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Safe Air for
Id. (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d
“Once the moving party has
3
1
converted a motion to dismiss into a factual motion by presenting
2
affidavits or other evidence properly before the court, the party
3
opposing the motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence
4
necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter
5
jurisdiction.”
6
Id. (quoting Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n.2).
However, “jurisdictional finding of genuinely disputed facts
7
is inappropriate when the jurisdictional issue and the
8
substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of
9
jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of factual issues
10
going to the merits of an action.”
11
F.3d at 1039 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
12
Jurisdiction and the merits of an action are intertwined where “a
13
statute provides the basis for both the subject matter
14
jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive
15
claim for relief.”
16
omitted).
17
18
19
B.
Safe Air for Everyone, 373
Id. (internal citations and quotations
Discussion
1.
Jurisdiction and Standing
Defendants first contend that Plaintiff’s ADA allegations
20
are “moot.”
Defendants then argue that their expert “disagrees
21
that any of Plaintiff’s allegations of ADA violations pled in his
22
Complaint are true, and as a matter of law, he is correct.” MTD
23
at p.7. Upon thorough analysis of Defendants’ motion, in
24
conjunction with the declaration filed by Defendants’ counsel
25
(Doc. #8-2) and the attached exhibits, it appears Defendants are
26
contending that whatever barriers may have previously existed,
27
“each and every claimed barrier to access has been altered to
28
comply with applicable accessibility requirements.”
4
MTD at p. 9.
1
Exhibit C (Doc. #8-6) to the declaration of Defendants’ counsel
2
is a “Unilateral Stipulation of Voluntary ADA/Title 24 Compliance
3
Prior to Service of Summons and Complaint” in which Defendants
4
state that by the time they were served “Ms. Jacobs had made all
5
relevant changes, but also more than what [Plaintiff] complained
6
about.”
7
expert, Kim Blackseth, which contains his opinion that all
8
alleged barriers have been removed as of his site inspection on
9
January 14, 2015.
10
Exhibit D (Doc. #8-7) is the report of Defendants’
Defendants argue that because there are no longer any
11
remaining barriers based on this evidence, Plaintiff’s claims are
12
moot and all that remains are state law claims.
13
the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
14
over these remaining claims.
They next argue
MTD at pp. 9-11.
15
Plaintiff responds to Defendants’ arguments by contending
16
that the question of jurisdiction and the merits of the action
17
are so intertwined that the issue can and should be raised in a
18
motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss.
19
Opp. at pp. 2-4.
20
of the instant motion to one for summary judgment would be
21
“premature and unfair” as Plaintiff has not had the opportunity
22
to conduct discovery or a site inspection to assess the alleged
23
alterations performed by Defendants. Opp. at p.4,n.1
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that conversion
24
Defendants’ motion represents a factual attack on the
25
complaint because it “disputes the truth of the allegations that,
26
by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction,”
27
namely whether barriers to access existed at Defendants’
28
facility.
Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039.
5
The Court
1
may therefore review evidence beyond the complaint, such as that
2
relied on by Defendants here, in resolving such an attack on
3
jurisdiction unless the issue of jurisdiction and the underlying
4
merit of Plaintiffs claims are too intertwined.
5
Id.
Clearly the ADA provides the basis for both the subject
6
matter jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff’s substantive
7
claims for relief.
8
on jurisdiction would require the Court to resolve disputed
9
issues of fact.
Addressing the merits of Defendants’ attack
Thus, the Court finds that the issue of
10
jurisdiction presented by Defendants and the substantive issues
11
presented by this litigation are in fact so intertwined that the
12
question of jurisdiction is dependent on the resolution of
13
factual issues going to the merits of this action.
14
for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (internal citations and quotations
15
omitted).
16
disputed facts is inappropriate.”
17
district have come to the same conclusion under similar
18
circumstances and an identical plaintiff.
19
No. 2:14-CV-00596-MCE, 2014 WL 6670054, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2014);
20
Johnson v. Hernandez, No. 2:14-CV-01635-MCE, 2014 WL 6670170, at
21
*4 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
22
See Safe Air
Therefore, a “jurisdictional finding of genuinely
Id.
Other courts in this
See Johnson v. Conrad,
Rather than convert this motion into one for summary
23
judgment at this early stage, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion
24
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice in order to
25
allow for discovery by both parties before the issue of mootness
26
is addressed.
27
(finding the conversion of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion “to one for
28
summary judgment would be premature because Plaintiff has not yet
See Johnson v. Conrad, 2014 WL 6670054, at *4
6
1
had the opportunity to engage in discovery and thus has not had
2
the opportunity to develop the evidence he may need to rebut
3
Defendants' ‘facts’”); Johnson v. Hernandez, 2014 WL 6670170, at
4
*4 (same conclusion); Johnson v. California Welding Supply, Inc.,
5
No. CIV. 2:11-01669 WBS, 2011 WL 5118599, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
6
7
2.
Sanctions
Defendants contend Plaintiff and his counsel should be
8
sanctioned for their conduct in this and other ADA cases.
9
pp. 11-13.
MTD at
The Court has denied Defendants’ motion and does not
10
find a basis for imposing sanctions on Plaintiff or his counsel
11
at this time. In addition, Defendants have failed to provide the
12
Court with any evidence from which the Court could determine the
13
amount of sanctions including billing records which reflect costs
14
and billable hours.
Defendants’ request is DENIED.
15
16
17
III.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
18
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
19
jurisdiction and DENIES Defendants’ request for sanctions.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 9, 2015
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?