Facts

Bascom Ave Development LLC, John Robert Taylor, and Taylor Properties (collectively "Bascom") leased their property to JMA Enterprises LLC and Jason Akbarzadeh (collectively "JMA Enterprises"), who own and operate a business known as Top Notch Auto Sales. Both JMA Enterprises and Bascom are California companies.

Bascom and JMA Enterprises entered a lease agreement, which contained an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provision. The provision provided that, in the event the lessee of the premises needed to make modifications or additions to the premises in order to be in ADA compliance, those modifications and/or additions would be made at the lessee's expense.

A Top Notch Auto customer, Eric Rojas, sued JMA Enterprises and Bascom, alleging that the property was not accessible to people with disabilities and thus in violation of the ADA and other laws. Rojas asserted that there was no accessible path of travel from the public right of way to the building entrance, and that the restroom was too small for his wheelchair. After the property was modified to bring it into ADA compliance, The Rojas suit against Bascom was dismissed by the district court. JMA Enterprises subsequently filed an action against Bascom.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants informed them of Rojas' lawsuit and represented that it was plaintiffs' duty under their lease agreement to retrofit the property and bring it into ADA compliance. Plaintiffs asserted that they did so at their own expense. Plaintiffs contended that, under the terms of their lease, defendants were responsible for bringing the premises into ADA compliance. Plaintiffs asserted state law claims of indemnity, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendants argued that the ADA only provides a cause of action for people with disabilities who are discriminated against on the basis of disability--not for tenants against landlords regarding ADA compliance. Defendants contended that plaintiffs' complaint did not present a federal question arising from the ADA, and thus the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.