Baidan v. Leone

Background

Orest Baidan represented himself and filed the action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, and the court granted that application and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The defendants were Leone Alberts & Duus, APC; Katherine A. Alberts; Seth L. Gordon; and several placeholder defendants. The opinion states that they were attorneys representing the defendant in Baidan’s separate civil action, referred to in the opinion as the “Shull action.”

Baidan alleged that he suffered serious burn injuries on August 21, 2025, received emergency treatment, took medication, and was instructed to limit use of his dominant hand. He said he informed defendants of his condition and sought to postpone his deposition until after an October 21 burn-clinic visit and medical clearance. According to Baidan, defendants said they would reschedule only if he waived all objections to being deposed after the discovery deadline, or else they would record a nonappearance and seek sanctions. Baidan alleged that defendants later contacted him about the deposition, filed a discovery-dispute letter after he did not appear, and delayed rescheduling after he received medical clearance.

The first amended complaint asserted a Title III ADA claim, an ADA retaliation and interference claim, and claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Bane Act. Baidan sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, costs, and fees.

Court’s analysis

The court first considered whether Baidan plausibly alleged a federal ADA claim because federal jurisdiction depended on a federal claim. Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.

The court assumed without deciding that Baidan adequately alleged that he was disabled. It nevertheless found that his Title III allegations were insufficient. Baidan alleged that Leone Alberts was a place of public accommodation because it was a law office, but he did not allege facts showing that the defendants owned, leased, or operated a public facility where the alleged violations occurred. The court also noted that he did not allege that the law firm’s physical office was open to the general public, that he visited or tried to visit that office, or that his deposition was scheduled there.

The court further concluded that Baidan was not seeking services from the defendants. According to the complaint, the defendants were private attorneys representing the opposing party in the other lawsuit, so they did not provide their legal services to Baidan. The court therefore concluded that Baidan did not plausibly allege discrimination under Title III.

The court separately addressed Baidan’s ADA retaliation and interference claim. It explained that an ADA discrimination claim is the required basis for an ADA retaliation or interference claim. Because Baidan did not plausibly allege ADA discrimination, the court concluded that those claims also could not proceed.

The court did not review Baidan’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and Bane Act claims. It stated that the amended complaint did not state a claim for relief under federal law and therefore was subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Recommendation and reassignment

The court recommended that the first amended complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without further leave to amend and without prejudice to filing an appropriate complaint in state court asserting state-law claims. The opinion says Baidan had already received one opportunity to amend and that the court found no basis to conclude that further amendment could cure the identified deficiencies.

Because not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi ordered the case reassigned to a district judge. The opinion is an order for reassignment and a report and recommendation; it states that any party could object within 14 days after being served.