Johnson v. Saleh et al.

Filing 28

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 7/31/17 ORDERING the Plaintiff's 24 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in full and awards Plaintiff $8,000 in statutory damages. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

2:16-cv-00617-JAM-KJN

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SAIF ALI AHMED SALEH, ET AL,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendants Saif

17
18

Ali Ahmed Saleh and Michael’s Market, Inc. (collectively

19

“Defendants”) alleging Defendants did not comply with the

20

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh

21

Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”).

22

Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment.

23

(“Mot.”), ECF No. 24.

24

grounds that Plaintiff’s damages claim raises an issue of

25

material fact.

Compl. at 9-15, ECF No. 1.
Mot. for Summ. J.

Defendants oppose summary judgment on the

Opp’n at 2-3, ECF No. 25. 1

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 July 25, 2017.
1

1

I.

2

FACTS

Plaintiff is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and drives

3

a specially equipped van.

4

In April 2014, Plaintiff visited Michael’s Market and found that

5

the business did not have appropriate parking for people with

6

disabilities and had various other barriers to accessibility.

7

Id. ¶¶ 4-18.

8

and encountered the barriers again.

9

Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, ECF No. 24-4.

Plaintiff returned to the market three more times
Id. ¶¶ 13, 20, 23.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for his ADA claim and

10

statutory damages for his Unruh Act claim.

11

Plaintiff seeks $8,000 in statutory damages: $4,000 for his first

12

visit and $4,000 “for his multiple visits thereafter.”

13

15.

Mot. at 14-15.

Id. at

14
15
16

II.

DISCUSSION

A plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief for ADA

17

violations, 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a), and statutory damages for Unruh

18

Act violations.

19

provides that “a violation of the right of any individual under

20

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 shall also constitute

21

a violation of this section.”

22

Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(a).

The Unruh Act

Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f).

Defendants concede that Michael’s Market “was not fully ADA

23

compliant when [Plaintiff] allegedly first visited the property.”

24

Opp. at 1.

25

to injunctive relief for his ADA claim.

26

grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his ADA claim

27

and grants the injunctive relief he seeks.

28

Defendants do not contest that Plaintiff is entitled
The Court therefore

As to Plaintiff’s request for statutory damages under the
2

1

Unruh Act, Defendants argue a triable issue exists as to whether

2

Plaintiff’s “multiple visits were ‘reasonable’ in light of

3

Plaintiff’s duty to mitigate his damages.”

4

Defendants contend the Court should deny summary judgment or

5

limit damages to $4,000.

6

Opp. at 2.

Id. at 3.

To support their position, Defendants rely on California

7

Civil Code § 55.56(h) and Johnson v. Wayside Prop., Inc., 41 F.

8

Supp. 3d 973 (E.D. Cal. 2014).

9

to a previous version of Section 55.56(h), and Wayside was

Id. at 2-3.

But Defendants cite

10

decided before the statute was changed in May 2016.

11

55.56(h) currently states, “[t]his section does not alter the

12

applicable law for the awarding of injunctive or other equitable

13

relief for a violation or violations of one or more construction-

14

related accessibility standards, nor alter any legal obligation

15

of a party to mitigate damages.”

16

Section

Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(h).

Another court in this district has stated that the current

17

Section 55.56(h) “does not create a duty to mitigate, but merely

18

states that where one exists, the section does not alter said

19

duty.”

Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1102 (E.D. Cal.

20

2016).

The Guedoir court further stated that the Unruh Act “is

21

silent on a duty to mitigate and sets a statutory damages minimum

22

of $4,000.

23

show actual damages to recover the statutory minimum.”

24

1102-03.

25

It is clearly established that a plaintiff need not
Id. at

This Court agrees with Guedoir and finds that a plaintiff

26

does not have a duty to mitigate damages under the Unruh Act in

27

light of current version of Section 55.56(h).

28

was reasonable for Plaintiff to visit the Market more than once
3

The Court finds it

1

and to seek $8,000 in total statutory penalties.

2

not make any other arguments in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion

3

for summary judgment.

4

summary judgment in full and awards Plaintiff $8,000 in statutory

5

damages.

Defendants do

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for

6
7
8
9
10
11

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 31, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4