Johnson v. BBVA Compass Financial Corporation

Filing 24

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/24/2016. Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Each of plaintiff's claims is hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff's 14 Motion is DENIED as the Court lacks jurisdiction. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

2:14-cv-2416-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.
BBVA COMPASS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

15
Defendant.
16
Following an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit

17
18

by Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”), Defendant BBVA Compass

19

Financial Corporation (“Defendant”) completely repaired the

20

accessibility barriers at its Stockton bank.

21

further injunctive relief available to Plaintiff under federal

22

law, the ADA claim is moot and the Court dismisses all remaining

23

claims for want of jurisdiction. 1

24

///

25

///

Because there is no

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 22, 2016.
1

1

I.

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff suffers from quadriplegia and manual dexterity

3

impairments.

Johnson Decl. ¶ 2.

4

mobility.

5

and 8, 2014 when he “had reason to get [] quarters[.]”

6

Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13.

7

the parking lot and at the entrance doors.

8

identified that the parking lot did not have a wheelchair logo,

9

“NO PARKING” lettering, a blue perimeter boundary line, or a sign

Id.

He uses a wheelchair for

Plaintiff went to Defendant’s bank on August 7
Johnson

Plaintiff states that he encountered barriers in
He specifically

10

warning of a $250 fine, and that the entry doors did not have

11

appropriate door hardware nor adequate clearance space due to a

12

planter.

13

Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 5-12.

In October 2014, Plaintiff sued Defendant in this Court

14

alleging violations of the ADA and California state law (Doc.

15

#1).

16

property.

17

these alterations completely resolved the accessibility issues.

18

See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 10-

19

15.

20

Within the next year, Defendant had made alterations to its
See Layman Decl. ¶¶ 3, 10-15.

The parties agree that

Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the

21

ADA claim is moot (Doc. #13).

Plaintiff opposes the motion (Doc.

22

#15) and also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on

23

injunctive relief and damages (Doc. #14).

24

cross-motion (Doc. #20). 2

25

///

Defendant opposes the

26
27
28

2

Because the Court dismisses this case on mootness grounds, the
Court does not reach the issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment.
2

1

II.

OPINION

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

“Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have

4

no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot[.]”

5

Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation and quotation

6

marks omitted).

7

changes in circumstances since Plaintiff filed suit have

8

“forestalled any meaningful relief.”

9

816 F. Supp. 2d 831, 860 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing West v. Sec’y

10

of Dep’t of Transportation, 206 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2000)).

11
12
13

B.

Foster v.

The question of mootness turns on whether

Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp.,

Analysis
1.

ADA Claim

Defendant argues that repairing all the identified barriers

14

moots Plaintiff’s ADA claim, rendering the Court without

15

jurisdiction.

16

the barriers have in fact been repaired, but contends that

17

injunctive relief is still available because the violations “can

18

easily recur.”

Defendant’s Mot. at 1-2.

Plaintiff agrees that

Plaintiff’s Opp. at 5.

19

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument, because there is “no

20

evidence or any reason to suggest that Defendant will revert back

21

to non-compliance[.]”

22

LLC, 2012 WL 3018320, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 23, 2012) aff'd, 778

23

F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2015) and aff'd, 780 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 2015)

24

(citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S.

25

167, 170 (2000)).

26

after this suit brought them to its attention.

27

non-compliance would be “illogical [], because doing so would

28

actually cost Defendant more than maintaining compliance.”

Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California,

Defendant dutifully repaired the barriers

3

And reverting to

1

Kohler v. In-N-Out Burgers, 2013 WL 5315443, at *7 (C.D. Cal.

2

Sept. 12, 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

3

Plaintiff nonetheless contends that two cases with “almost

4

identical facts” should compel the Court to retain jurisdiction.

5

See Plaintiff’s Opp. at 7-9.

6

cases distinguishable, because in both cases the record contained

7

evidence that the defendant was in fact likely to lapse in their

8

ADA compliance duties.

9

had a history of reverting to noncompliance and their existing

The Court disagrees and finds those

That is, the defendants in those cases

10

policies for maintaining compliance were demonstrably inadequate.

11

See Lozano v. C.A. Martinez Family Ltd. P’ship, 2015 WL 5227869,

12

at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (defendant had been previously

13

sued for ADA violations, repaired the barriers, then let the

14

repairs lapse, and defendant’s policy had failed to maintain

15

compliance in the past); Moeller, 816 F. Supp. 2d at 860-61

16

(extensive evidence “demonstrate[d] that [the defendant was] not

17

[] following its own [disability] access policies, and had a

18

history of not doing so” and had a history of repeated

19

violations).

20

Here, in contrast, there is no evidence that Defendant will

21

let the repairs lapse or otherwise change the conditions at its

22

bank to make it noncompliant.

23

Defendant has a history of recurring violations or that it is

24

unwilling or unable to maintain the current state of the

25

property.

26

its obligations [under the ADA] seriously[.]”

27

at 1.

28

obtain any meaningful injunctive relief in this action.

There is no evidence that

Even Plaintiff acknowledged that Defendant “take[s]
Plaintiff’s Opp.

The Court is therefore persuaded that Plaintiff cannot

4

The ADA

1

cause of action is moot, and the Court must accordingly dismiss

2

it.

3
4

2.

State Law Claims

The parties apparently agree that the only basis for federal

5

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims was supplemental

6

jurisdiction derived from the ADA cause of action.

7

Court has dismissed the ADA claim as moot, the “primary

8

responsibility for developing and applying state law belongs to

9

the state courts.”

Kohler, 2013 WL 5315443, at *8.

Now that the

The Court

10

therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

11

these claims in the interest of comity and fairness.

12
13
14

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS

15

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

16

claims is hereby DISMISSED.

17

Court lacks jurisdiction.

18
19

Each of Plaintiff’s

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as the

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5