Johnson v. Holden

13 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. Four Bells Mkt. & Liquor

    23-cv-00549-TSH (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Johnson v. LMT Foods, Inc., 2022 WL 2343045, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2022) (citing Johnson v. Holden, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020)); cf. Clavo v. Zarrabian, 2004 WL 3709049, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2004) (holding that the plaintiff's ADA claim was not moot where the defendants had “an entrenched policy of blocking access to” a “wheelchair accessible gate and check-out aisle” and the defendants “failed to change that policy until after th[e] case was filed”); Watanabe v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2003 WL 24272650, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2003) (finding that the plaintiff's ADA claim was not moot where the defendant did not change their policies and procedures to prevent future ADA violations and there was no indication that the defendant intended to comply with ADA)

  2. Whitaker v. Oak & Fort Enter. (U.S.), Inc.

    5:21-cv-00668-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022)

    Based on the parties' competing claims, the Court cannot resolve the mootness issue without making a factual finding as to the effectiveness of Defendant's remediation in demonstrating that “subsequent events made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Opp'n at 10 (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000)). Defendant's efforts can be compared to those undertaken in Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-CV-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020). In Holden, plaintiff alleged that during his visits to defendants' business, the existing ADA-compliant van accessible parking spot was blocked.

  3. Johnson v. LMT Foods, Inc.

    5:21-cv-03967-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The dearth of evidence showing past ADA violations or an intent to violate in the future indicates that future violations are not reasonably likely to occur. See Johnson v. Holden, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020); cf. Clavo v. Zarrabian, 2004 WL 3709049, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2004) (holding that the plaintiff's ADA claim was not moot where the defendants had “an entrenched policy of blocking access to” a “wheelchair accessible gate and check-out aisle” and the defendants “failed to change that policy until after th[e] case was filed”); Watanabe, 2003 WL 24272650, at *4 (finding that the plaintiff's ADA claim was not moot where the defendant did not change their policies and procedures to prevent future ADA violations and there was no indication that the defendant intended to comply with ADA).

  4. Whitaker v. Chanel, Inc.

    21-cv-09330-SVK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Whether a defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly wrongful conduct moots a case depends on the circumstances. See Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-cv-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020). In ADA cases, “where structural modifications are made, then it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not be reasonably expected to occur in the future since structural modification[s] undo the offending conduct.”

  5. Garcia v. Dudum

    21-cv-05081-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-CV-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020).

  6. Johnson v. Supakam Corp.

    21-cv-04122-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2022)   Cited 6 times

    To prevail in showing mootness for voluntary cessation of alleged wrongful conduct, a defendant must show that the alleged behavior “could not reasonably be expected to recur.” See Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-cv-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) (quoting Moore v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 85 F.Supp.3d 1176, 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2015)). When considering voluntary cessation of alleged wrongful conduct related to non-structural features, courts consider “the bona fides of the expressed intent to comply, the effectiveness of the discontinuance and, in some cases, the character of the past violations.”

  7. Johnson v. Hurwicz

    5:21-cv-02027-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    The threat of future injury dissipates if the barriers to accessibility have been remediated-particularly where remediation required structural changes that are not reasonably likely to be undone. See Johnson v. Holden, No. 18-01624 EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020); Ramirez v. Golden Creme Donuts, No. 12-05656 LB, 2013 WL 6056660, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013); see generally Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000) (“[A] defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”). Here, Defendants have presented evidence of their voluntary remediation of the alleged barrier.

  8. Whitaker v. Montes

    21-cv-00679-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021)   Cited 1 times
    In Montes, another Reservations Rule case involving a hotel website, Judge Chen found that the defendant's amendment of its website to provide additional information about accessibility effectively mooted the plaintiff's ADA claim.

    But just because a change made by a defendant is nonphysical/nonstructural in nature does not mean that mootness cannot be found. For example, in Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-cv-01624-EJD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47946 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020), the plaintiff brought suit against the operators of a Shell gas station because, when he visited the station on multiple occasions, the existing van accessible parking spot was blocked by employees' cars and there was an insufficient number of disabled parking spaces. See Id. at *2.

  9. Garcia v. Dudum

    21-cv-05081-SI (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2021)

    The threat of future injury dissipates if the barriers to accessibility have been remediated. See Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-CV-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020).

  10. Johnson v. Mo's TBJ Campbell LP

    5:21-cv-01621-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Whether a defendant's voluntary cessation of allegedly wrongful conduct moots a case depends on the circumstances of the case. See Johnson v. Holden, No. 5:18-cv-01624-EJD, 2020 WL 1288404, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020). In ADA cases, “where structural modifications are made, then it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to occur in the future since structural modification[s] undo the offending conduct.”