Bellone v. Roaring Camp, Inc.

Background

Chuck Bellone alleged that he is partially blind and has visual and mobility impairments requiring him to use a cane. He arranged a five-day California railway tour organized and guided by Gadabout Tours, Inc., doing business as Gadabout Vacations. Bellone told Gadabout about his disabilities, and Gadabout employees assured him that he would be able to access everything on the trip and receive assistance as needed.

During a stop at Roaring Camp Railroads, Gadabout arranged a barbecue lunch. Bellone alleged that both routes from the barbecue area to the picnic tables were inaccessible: one included uneven brick stairs without a handrail, and the other included uneven dirt walkways and a grate. He also alleged that he could not find the tour director after leaving the train and had to proceed without assistance. He fell and suffered a cracked sternum and ribs, as well as mental pain and suffering.

Bellone asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act, along with a California negligence claim. Gadabout moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, of the three disability-related claims. Roaring Camp and the Anderson defendants had previously been dismissed from the case, leaving Gadabout as the sole defendant.

ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA applies to a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. The court explained that an ADA claim requires allegations that the plaintiff has a disability, that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied the plaintiff access because of the disability.

Gadabout’s motion focused on the second requirement. Gadabout argued that Bellone did not allege that it owned, leased, or operated Roaring Camp’s premises, where the alleged barriers were located. Gadabout also argued that Bellone did not allege that he was denied equal access to Gadabout’s own physical business location.

The court held that Bellone could not state an ADA claim based solely on discrimination in travel services that was not connected to access to a physical place of public accommodation. The complaint did not plausibly allege that Bellone was denied equal access to Gadabout’s place of business. The court also rejected Bellone’s alternative argument that Gadabout’s contract with Roaring Camp made Gadabout liable for barriers at Roaring Camp. Bellone cited no supporting authority, and the court was aware of none establishing liability merely because one entity contracts with another entity that owns, leases, or operates a public accommodation.

Unruh Act and California Disabled Persons Act Claims

Bellone’s Unruh Act and California Disabled Persons Act claims were based on alleged intentional discrimination or willful misconduct and, as the court understood them, depended on the alleged ADA violation. Bellone appeared to disavow independent claims under those statutes. Because the court found that Bellone failed to state an ADA claim, it also found that he failed to state claims under the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

Leave to Amend

The court concluded that amendment would be futile and dismissed claims one through three without leave to amend. At the hearing, Bellone suggested that he could allege, on information and belief, that a contract gave Gadabout sufficient control over Roaring Camp’s premises. But he acknowledged that he had no actual knowledge of such a contract and would need discovery to obtain evidence of it. The court concluded that he did not then have a proper factual basis under Rule 11 for pleading that theory.

Negligence Claim and Disposition

The remaining negligence claim arose under California law and did not independently establish federal jurisdiction. The court therefore declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, and dismissed the negligence claim without prejudice.

The court granted Gadabout’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend, dismissed claims one through three without leave to amend, declined supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim, and dismissed that claim without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the file.