Sepulveda v. Alzamzami

Background

Richard Sepulveda asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning access to Los Primos Market and Produce. He also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

ADA Standing

To obtain an injunction in federal court, a plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of being injured again. In an ADA access case, that generally requires evidence that the plaintiff intends to return to the noncompliant location and is likely to encounter the barrier again.

The court held that the record did not support Sepulveda’s claimed intent to return to the Market. Sepulveda lived in Manteca, California, more than 75 miles from the Market in San Pablo. He had visited the Market twice, could not recall its location during his deposition, and had identified no concrete plan to return. Although he said that he traveled to Oakland for medical appointments, sometimes went to his attorney’s office in Richmond, and made spontaneous visits to stores, the court found that these facts did not make a return to the Market sufficiently likely. The court therefore concluded that he lacked standing to pursue the ADA claim for injunctive relief.

The court noted that it has understood that a successful factual challenge to standing at the summary-judgment stage should result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction rather than summary judgment for the defendant. The court nevertheless used summary judgment because the Ninth Circuit had treated a summary-judgment motion as the appropriate vehicle for resolving a factual standing challenge at that stage. The court said the practical result was the same: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Unruh Act Claim and Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justified declining supplemental jurisdiction over Sepulveda’s Unruh Act claim. It cited the facts of the case, including what it described as Sepulveda’s frequent filing of ADA and Unruh Act claims to seek federal jurisdiction despite California procedural barriers. The court also stated that exercising jurisdiction would allow him to bypass state-law limitations and would conflict with respect between federal and state courts.

Disposition

Judge Chhabria granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions as to Sepulveda’s ADA claim and dismissed that claim for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without leave to amend but without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.