Robinson v. Lee

Background

David Robinson, who uses a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury, alleged that he encountered architectural barriers at Loard’s Ice Cream in Oakland, California. He claimed that an accessible parking space was not well maintained and lacked signage, and that standing signs obstructed the path into the business.

Robinson asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. In an earlier order, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed it without prejudice to refiling in state court. The ADA claim was the only claim remaining in this case.

Motion and evidence

Lee moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed. A claim is moot when later events eliminate the live dispute, including when the challenged conduct is not reasonably expected to recur.

The court explained that the question whether ADA violations remained was intertwined with Robinson’s substantive claim. It therefore treated the motion as a motion for summary judgment and applied the standard requiring no genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Lee submitted evidence that changes had been made at the facility after the lawsuit was served. The court relied on a report by Certified Access Specialist Mike Miyaki, who inspected the property on December 12, 2024. The report stated that the new accessible parking space had the required dimensions, striping, signage, and slopes; that the walkway was at least 48 inches wide and unobstructed; and that the interior path of travel was at least 36 inches wide and unobstructed. It also stated that the facility’s sales counter met applicable standards.

Robinson did not submit evidence contradicting Lee’s evidence. He argued that Miyaki’s declaration was inadequate, that the motion was premature under the district’s ADA case procedures, that parking-space paint could fade, and that Lee had not shown policies or procedures ensuring future compliance. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the report and declaration adequately supported the conclusion that the barriers had been resolved. It also found that the district’s procedures did not prevent the motion or excuse Robinson’s failure to inspect the improvements.

Ruling

The court found that Lee had shown that all barriers alleged in Robinson’s complaint had been removed and that the alleged wrongful conduct was not reasonably likely to recur. The court therefore held that Robinson’s ADA claim was moot.

The court granted Lee’s motion to dismiss Robinson’s ADA claim. It also stated that it would enter a separate judgment, after which the Clerk of Court would close the file.